text string | id string | dump string | url string | file_path string | language string | language_score float64 | token_count int64 | score float64 | int_score int64 | embedding list | count int64 | Content string | Tokens int64 | Top_Lang string | Top_Conf float64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|This article is part of a series on the|
|Constitution of the|
United States of America
Preamble and Articles|
of the Constitution
|Amendments to the Constitution|
|Full text of the Constitution and Amendments|
The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution sets a limit on the number of times an individual is eligible for election to the office of President of the United States, and also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.
Prior to the ratification of the amendment, the president had not been subject to term limits, but George Washington had established a two-term tradition that many other presidents had followed. In the 1940 presidential election and the 1944 presidential election, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to win a third term and then later a fourth term, giving rise to concerns about the potential issues involved with a president serving an unlimited number of terms. Congress approved the Twenty-second Amendment on March 24, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951, after the amendment had been ratified by the requisite 36 of the then-48 states (as neither Alaska nor Hawaii had been admitted as states), and its provisions came into force on that date.
The amendment prohibits any individual who has been elected president twice from being elected again. Under the amendment, an individual who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting greater than two years is also prohibited from winning election as president more than once. Scholars debate whether the amendment prohibits affected individuals from succeeding to the presidency under any circumstances or whether it only applies to presidential elections.
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
Notwithstanding that the Twenty-second Amendment was clearly a reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to an unprecedented four terms as president, the notion of presidential term limits has long been debated in American politics. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the issue extensively (alongside broader questions, such as who would elect the president, and the president's role). Many—including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison—supported a lifetime appointment for presidents, while others favored fixed terms appointments. Virginia's George Mason denounced the life-tenure proposal as tantamount to establishment of an elective monarchy. An early draft of the United States Constitution provided that the President was restricted to a single seven-year term. Ultimately, the Framers approved four-year terms with no restriction on the amount of time a person could serve as president.
Though dismissed by the Constitutional Convention, the concept of term limits for U.S. presidents took hold during the presidencies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. As his second term entered its final year in 1796, George Washington was exhausted from years of public service, and his health had begun to decline. He was also bothered by the unrelenting attacks from his political opponents, which had escalated after the signing of the Jay Treaty, and believed that he had accomplished his major goals as president. For these reasons, he decided not to stand for reelection to a third term, a decision he announced to the nation through a Farewell Address in September 1796. Eleven years later, as Thomas Jefferson neared the half-way point of his second term, he wrote,
If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact, become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.
Since Washington made his historic announcement, numerous academics and public figures have looked at his decision to retire after two terms, and have, according to political scientist Bruce Peabody, "argued he had established a two-term tradition that served as a vital check against any one person, or the presidency as a whole, accumulating too much power". Numerous amendments aimed toward changing informal precedent into constitutional law were proposed in Congress during the early to mid-19th century, but none passed. Three of the next four presidents after Jefferson—James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson—served two terms, and each one adhered to the two-term principle; Martin Van Buren was the only president between Jackson and Abraham Lincoln to be nominated for a second term, although he lost the 1840 election, and so only served one term. Before the Civil War the seceding States drafted the Constitution of the Confederate States of America which in most respects was similar to the United States Constitution, but one change was limiting the President to a single six-year term.
In spite of the strong two-term tradition, a few presidents prior to Franklin Roosevelt did attempt to secure a third term. Following Ulysses S. Grant's reelection victory in 1872, there were serious discussions within Republican political circles about the possibility of his running again in 1876. Interest in a third term for Grant evaporated however, in the light of negative public opinion and opposition from members of Congress, and Grant left the presidency in 1877, after two terms. Even so, as the 1880 election approached, he sought nomination for a (non-consecutive) third term at the 1880 Republican National Convention, but narrowly lost to James Garfield, who would go on to win the 1880 election.
Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency on September 14, 1901, following William McKinley's assassination (194 days into his second term), and was subsequently elected to a full term in 1904. While he declined to seek a third (second full) term in 1908, Roosevelt did seek one four years later, in the election of 1912, where he lost to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson himself, despite his ill health following a serious stroke, aspired to a third term. Many of Wilson's advisers tried to convince him that his health precluded another campaign, but Wilson nonetheless asked that his name be placed in nomination for the presidency at the 1920 Democratic National Convention. Democratic Party leaders were unwilling to support Wilson, however, and the nomination eventually went to James M. Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding. Wilson again contemplated running for a (nonconsecutive) third term in 1924, devising a strategy for his comeback, but again lacked any support; he died in February of that year.
Franklin D. Roosevelt spent the months leading up to the 1940 Democratic National Convention refusing to state whether he would seek a third term. His Vice President, John Nance Garner, along with Postmaster General James Farley, announced their candidacies for the Democratic nomination. When the convention came, Roosevelt sent a message to the convention, saying he would run only if drafted, saying delegates were free to vote for whomever they pleased. This message was interpreted to mean he was willing to be drafted, and he subsequently was renominated on the convention's first ballot. Later, during the 1940 presidential election, Roosevelt won a decisive victory over Republican Wendell Willkie, becoming the first, and to date only, person to exceed eight years in office. Roosevelt's decision to seek a third term dominated the election campaign. Willkie ran against the open-ended presidential tenure, while Democrats cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent.
Four years later, Roosevelt faced Republican Thomas E. Dewey in the 1944 election. Near the end of the campaign, Thomas Dewey announced his support of a constitutional amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, "four terms, or sixteen years (a direct reference to the president's tenure in office four years hence), is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." He also discreetly raised the issue of the president's age. Roosevelt, however, was able to exude enough energy and charisma to retain the confidence of the American public, who reelected him to a fourth term.
While he effectively quelled rumors of his poor health during the campaign, Roosevelt's health was in reality deteriorating. On April 12, 1945, only 82 days after his fourth inauguration, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died. He was succeeded by Vice President Harry Truman. In the midterm elections 18 months later, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate. As many of them had campaigned on the issue of presidential tenure, declaring their support for a constitutional amendment that would limit how long a person could serve as president, the issue was given top priority in the 80th Congress when it convened in January 1947.
The House of Representatives took quick action, approving a proposed constitutional amendment (House Joint Resolution 27) setting a limit of two four-year terms for future presidents. Introduced by Earl C. Michener, the measure passed 285–121, with support from 47 Democrats, on February 6, 1947. Meanwhile, the Senate developed its own proposed amendment, which initially differed from the House proposal by requiring that the amendment be submitted to state ratifying conventions for ratification, rather than to the state legislatures, and by prohibiting any person who had served more than 365 days in each of two terms from further presidential service. Both these provisions were removed when the full Senate took up the bill, but a new provision was, however, added. Put forward by Robert A. Taft, it clarified procedures governing the number of times a vice president who succeeded to the presidency might be elected to office. The amended proposal was passed 59–23, with 16 Democrats in favor, on March 12.
Several days later, the House agreed to the Senate's revisions, and on March 24, 1947, the constitutional amendment imposing term limitations on future Presidents was submitted to the states for ratification. The ratification process for the 22nd Amendment was completed on February 27, 1951, 3 years, 343 days after it was sent to the states.
Once submitted to the states, the 22nd Amendment was ratified by:
Conversely, two states—Oklahoma and Massachusetts—rejected the amendment, while five (Arizona, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia) took no action.
The 22nd Amendment's two-term limit did not apply (due to the grandfather clause in Section 1) to Harry S. Truman, because he was the incumbent president at the time it was proposed by Congress. Truman, who had served nearly all of Franklin D. Roosevelt's unexpired fourth term and who was elected to a full term in 1948, was thus eligible to seek re-election in 1952. However, with his job approval rating floundering at around 27%, and after a poor performance in the 1952 New Hampshire primary, Truman chose not to seek his party's nomination. He theoretically also would have been eligible in later elections.
Since coming into force in 1951, the amendment has applied to six presidents who have been elected twice: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
It could have impacted two who entered office intra-term due to their predecessor's death or resignation: Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford. Johnson became president in November 1963, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, served out the final 1 year and 59 days of Kennedy's term, and was elected to a full four-year term in 1964. Four years later, he briefly ran for a second full term, but withdrew from the race during the party primaries. Had Johnson served a second full term – through January 20, 1973 – the total length of his presidency would have been 9 years and 59 days; as it happened, Johnson died two days after this date. Gerald Ford, who became president in August 1974 following the resignation of Richard Nixon, served the final 2 years and 164 days of Nixon's term, and attempted to win a full four-year term in 1976, but was defeated by Jimmy Carter. Johnson was eligible to be elected to two full terms in his own right, as he had served less than two years of Kennedy's unexpired term, whereas Ford was eligible to be elected to only one full term, as he had served more than two years of Nixon's unexpired term.
As worded, the primary focus of the 22nd Amendment is on limiting individuals twice elected to the presidency from being elected again. Due to this, several issues could be raised regarding the amendment's meaning and application, especially in relation to the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, which states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". While it is clear that under the 12th Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear whether someone who is ineligible to be elected president could be elected vice president. Because of this apparent ambiguity, there may be a loophole in the 22nd Amendment whereby a two-term former-president could be elected vice president and then succeed to the presidency as a result of the incumbent's death, resignation, or removal from office (or even succeed to the presidency from some other stated office in the presidential line of succession).
Some argue that the 22nd Amendment and 12th Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the presidential line of succession. Others contend that the original intent of the 12th Amendment concerns qualification for service (age, residence, and citizenship), while the 22nd Amendment, concerns qualifications for election, and thus (strictly applying the text) a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president (neither amendment restricts the number of times an individual can be elected to the vice presidency), and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term (though prohibited from running for election to an additional term).
The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency. In 1980, former president Gerald Ford was mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan, and there were some negotiations between the two camps, but nothing ever came of the idea. During Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, she jokingly said that she had considered naming her husband Bill Clinton as her vice presidential running mate, but had been advised it would be unconstitutional. Most likely, the constitutional question raised will remain unanswered unless the situation actually occurs.
Over the years, several presidents have voiced their antipathy toward the amendment. After leaving office, Harry Truman variously described it as: "bad", "stupid", and "one of the worst that has been put into the Constitution, except for the Prohibition Amendment". In January 1989, during an interview with Tom Brokaw a few days prior to leaving office, Ronald Reagan stated his intention to push for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, calling it "an infringement on the democratic rights of the people." In a November 2000 interview with Rolling Stone, out-going President Bill Clinton suggested that, given longer life expectancy, perhaps the 22nd Amendment should be altered so as to limit presidents to two consecutive terms. On multiple occasions since taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump has questioned presidential term limits and in public remarks has talked about violating the 22nd Amendment. For instance, during an April 2019 White House event for the Wounded Warrior Project, he said that he would remain president "at least for 10 or 14 years."
The first efforts in Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment were undertaken in 1956, only five years after the amendment's ratification. According to the Congressional Research Service, over the ensuing half-century (through 2008) 54 joint resolutions seeking to repeal the two-term presidential election limit were introduced (primarily in the House); none were given serious consideration. Between 1997 and 2013, José E. Serrano (D-NY) introduced nine resolutions (one per Congress, all unsuccessful) to repeal the amendment. Repeal has also been supported by senior congressmen such as Barney Frank and David Dreier and Senators Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid. | <urn:uuid:05bc5b8d-2dc7-4cd5-9e7d-8593b5f4c67d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://en.wikibedia.ru/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00257.warc.gz | en | 0.980545 | 3,431 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.3145366907119751,
0.06729047000408173,
0.09928758442401886,
-0.3023824095726013,
-0.4680192470550537,
0.5976172685623169,
0.13821378350257874,
-0.08912929892539978,
0.45166677236557007,
0.22410991787910461,
0.3584963083267212,
0.5017414689064026,
0.22680562734603882,
0.00583657203242182... | 1 | |This article is part of a series on the|
|Constitution of the|
United States of America
Preamble and Articles|
of the Constitution
|Amendments to the Constitution|
|Full text of the Constitution and Amendments|
The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution sets a limit on the number of times an individual is eligible for election to the office of President of the United States, and also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.
Prior to the ratification of the amendment, the president had not been subject to term limits, but George Washington had established a two-term tradition that many other presidents had followed. In the 1940 presidential election and the 1944 presidential election, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to win a third term and then later a fourth term, giving rise to concerns about the potential issues involved with a president serving an unlimited number of terms. Congress approved the Twenty-second Amendment on March 24, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951, after the amendment had been ratified by the requisite 36 of the then-48 states (as neither Alaska nor Hawaii had been admitted as states), and its provisions came into force on that date.
The amendment prohibits any individual who has been elected president twice from being elected again. Under the amendment, an individual who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting greater than two years is also prohibited from winning election as president more than once. Scholars debate whether the amendment prohibits affected individuals from succeeding to the presidency under any circumstances or whether it only applies to presidential elections.
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
Notwithstanding that the Twenty-second Amendment was clearly a reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to an unprecedented four terms as president, the notion of presidential term limits has long been debated in American politics. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the issue extensively (alongside broader questions, such as who would elect the president, and the president's role). Many—including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison—supported a lifetime appointment for presidents, while others favored fixed terms appointments. Virginia's George Mason denounced the life-tenure proposal as tantamount to establishment of an elective monarchy. An early draft of the United States Constitution provided that the President was restricted to a single seven-year term. Ultimately, the Framers approved four-year terms with no restriction on the amount of time a person could serve as president.
Though dismissed by the Constitutional Convention, the concept of term limits for U.S. presidents took hold during the presidencies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. As his second term entered its final year in 1796, George Washington was exhausted from years of public service, and his health had begun to decline. He was also bothered by the unrelenting attacks from his political opponents, which had escalated after the signing of the Jay Treaty, and believed that he had accomplished his major goals as president. For these reasons, he decided not to stand for reelection to a third term, a decision he announced to the nation through a Farewell Address in September 1796. Eleven years later, as Thomas Jefferson neared the half-way point of his second term, he wrote,
If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact, become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.
Since Washington made his historic announcement, numerous academics and public figures have looked at his decision to retire after two terms, and have, according to political scientist Bruce Peabody, "argued he had established a two-term tradition that served as a vital check against any one person, or the presidency as a whole, accumulating too much power". Numerous amendments aimed toward changing informal precedent into constitutional law were proposed in Congress during the early to mid-19th century, but none passed. Three of the next four presidents after Jefferson—James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson—served two terms, and each one adhered to the two-term principle; Martin Van Buren was the only president between Jackson and Abraham Lincoln to be nominated for a second term, although he lost the 1840 election, and so only served one term. Before the Civil War the seceding States drafted the Constitution of the Confederate States of America which in most respects was similar to the United States Constitution, but one change was limiting the President to a single six-year term.
In spite of the strong two-term tradition, a few presidents prior to Franklin Roosevelt did attempt to secure a third term. Following Ulysses S. Grant's reelection victory in 1872, there were serious discussions within Republican political circles about the possibility of his running again in 1876. Interest in a third term for Grant evaporated however, in the light of negative public opinion and opposition from members of Congress, and Grant left the presidency in 1877, after two terms. Even so, as the 1880 election approached, he sought nomination for a (non-consecutive) third term at the 1880 Republican National Convention, but narrowly lost to James Garfield, who would go on to win the 1880 election.
Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency on September 14, 1901, following William McKinley's assassination (194 days into his second term), and was subsequently elected to a full term in 1904. While he declined to seek a third (second full) term in 1908, Roosevelt did seek one four years later, in the election of 1912, where he lost to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson himself, despite his ill health following a serious stroke, aspired to a third term. Many of Wilson's advisers tried to convince him that his health precluded another campaign, but Wilson nonetheless asked that his name be placed in nomination for the presidency at the 1920 Democratic National Convention. Democratic Party leaders were unwilling to support Wilson, however, and the nomination eventually went to James M. Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding. Wilson again contemplated running for a (nonconsecutive) third term in 1924, devising a strategy for his comeback, but again lacked any support; he died in February of that year.
Franklin D. Roosevelt spent the months leading up to the 1940 Democratic National Convention refusing to state whether he would seek a third term. His Vice President, John Nance Garner, along with Postmaster General James Farley, announced their candidacies for the Democratic nomination. When the convention came, Roosevelt sent a message to the convention, saying he would run only if drafted, saying delegates were free to vote for whomever they pleased. This message was interpreted to mean he was willing to be drafted, and he subsequently was renominated on the convention's first ballot. Later, during the 1940 presidential election, Roosevelt won a decisive victory over Republican Wendell Willkie, becoming the first, and to date only, person to exceed eight years in office. Roosevelt's decision to seek a third term dominated the election campaign. Willkie ran against the open-ended presidential tenure, while Democrats cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent.
Four years later, Roosevelt faced Republican Thomas E. Dewey in the 1944 election. Near the end of the campaign, Thomas Dewey announced his support of a constitutional amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, "four terms, or sixteen years (a direct reference to the president's tenure in office four years hence), is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." He also discreetly raised the issue of the president's age. Roosevelt, however, was able to exude enough energy and charisma to retain the confidence of the American public, who reelected him to a fourth term.
While he effectively quelled rumors of his poor health during the campaign, Roosevelt's health was in reality deteriorating. On April 12, 1945, only 82 days after his fourth inauguration, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died. He was succeeded by Vice President Harry Truman. In the midterm elections 18 months later, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate. As many of them had campaigned on the issue of presidential tenure, declaring their support for a constitutional amendment that would limit how long a person could serve as president, the issue was given top priority in the 80th Congress when it convened in January 1947.
The House of Representatives took quick action, approving a proposed constitutional amendment (House Joint Resolution 27) setting a limit of two four-year terms for future presidents. Introduced by Earl C. Michener, the measure passed 285–121, with support from 47 Democrats, on February 6, 1947. Meanwhile, the Senate developed its own proposed amendment, which initially differed from the House proposal by requiring that the amendment be submitted to state ratifying conventions for ratification, rather than to the state legislatures, and by prohibiting any person who had served more than 365 days in each of two terms from further presidential service. Both these provisions were removed when the full Senate took up the bill, but a new provision was, however, added. Put forward by Robert A. Taft, it clarified procedures governing the number of times a vice president who succeeded to the presidency might be elected to office. The amended proposal was passed 59–23, with 16 Democrats in favor, on March 12.
Several days later, the House agreed to the Senate's revisions, and on March 24, 1947, the constitutional amendment imposing term limitations on future Presidents was submitted to the states for ratification. The ratification process for the 22nd Amendment was completed on February 27, 1951, 3 years, 343 days after it was sent to the states.
Once submitted to the states, the 22nd Amendment was ratified by:
Conversely, two states—Oklahoma and Massachusetts—rejected the amendment, while five (Arizona, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia) took no action.
The 22nd Amendment's two-term limit did not apply (due to the grandfather clause in Section 1) to Harry S. Truman, because he was the incumbent president at the time it was proposed by Congress. Truman, who had served nearly all of Franklin D. Roosevelt's unexpired fourth term and who was elected to a full term in 1948, was thus eligible to seek re-election in 1952. However, with his job approval rating floundering at around 27%, and after a poor performance in the 1952 New Hampshire primary, Truman chose not to seek his party's nomination. He theoretically also would have been eligible in later elections.
Since coming into force in 1951, the amendment has applied to six presidents who have been elected twice: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama.
It could have impacted two who entered office intra-term due to their predecessor's death or resignation: Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford. Johnson became president in November 1963, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, served out the final 1 year and 59 days of Kennedy's term, and was elected to a full four-year term in 1964. Four years later, he briefly ran for a second full term, but withdrew from the race during the party primaries. Had Johnson served a second full term – through January 20, 1973 – the total length of his presidency would have been 9 years and 59 days; as it happened, Johnson died two days after this date. Gerald Ford, who became president in August 1974 following the resignation of Richard Nixon, served the final 2 years and 164 days of Nixon's term, and attempted to win a full four-year term in 1976, but was defeated by Jimmy Carter. Johnson was eligible to be elected to two full terms in his own right, as he had served less than two years of Kennedy's unexpired term, whereas Ford was eligible to be elected to only one full term, as he had served more than two years of Nixon's unexpired term.
As worded, the primary focus of the 22nd Amendment is on limiting individuals twice elected to the presidency from being elected again. Due to this, several issues could be raised regarding the amendment's meaning and application, especially in relation to the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, which states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". While it is clear that under the 12th Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear whether someone who is ineligible to be elected president could be elected vice president. Because of this apparent ambiguity, there may be a loophole in the 22nd Amendment whereby a two-term former-president could be elected vice president and then succeed to the presidency as a result of the incumbent's death, resignation, or removal from office (or even succeed to the presidency from some other stated office in the presidential line of succession).
Some argue that the 22nd Amendment and 12th Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the presidential line of succession. Others contend that the original intent of the 12th Amendment concerns qualification for service (age, residence, and citizenship), while the 22nd Amendment, concerns qualifications for election, and thus (strictly applying the text) a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president (neither amendment restricts the number of times an individual can be elected to the vice presidency), and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term (though prohibited from running for election to an additional term).
The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency. In 1980, former president Gerald Ford was mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan, and there were some negotiations between the two camps, but nothing ever came of the idea. During Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, she jokingly said that she had considered naming her husband Bill Clinton as her vice presidential running mate, but had been advised it would be unconstitutional. Most likely, the constitutional question raised will remain unanswered unless the situation actually occurs.
Over the years, several presidents have voiced their antipathy toward the amendment. After leaving office, Harry Truman variously described it as: "bad", "stupid", and "one of the worst that has been put into the Constitution, except for the Prohibition Amendment". In January 1989, during an interview with Tom Brokaw a few days prior to leaving office, Ronald Reagan stated his intention to push for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, calling it "an infringement on the democratic rights of the people." In a November 2000 interview with Rolling Stone, out-going President Bill Clinton suggested that, given longer life expectancy, perhaps the 22nd Amendment should be altered so as to limit presidents to two consecutive terms. On multiple occasions since taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump has questioned presidential term limits and in public remarks has talked about violating the 22nd Amendment. For instance, during an April 2019 White House event for the Wounded Warrior Project, he said that he would remain president "at least for 10 or 14 years."
The first efforts in Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment were undertaken in 1956, only five years after the amendment's ratification. According to the Congressional Research Service, over the ensuing half-century (through 2008) 54 joint resolutions seeking to repeal the two-term presidential election limit were introduced (primarily in the House); none were given serious consideration. Between 1997 and 2013, José E. Serrano (D-NY) introduced nine resolutions (one per Congress, all unsuccessful) to repeal the amendment. Repeal has also been supported by senior congressmen such as Barney Frank and David Dreier and Senators Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid. | 3,676 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Formosus fôrmō´səs [key], c.816–896, pope (891–96), probably a Roman; successor of Stephen VI. Under Pope Nicholas I he had been bishop in Bulgaria, where he pursued a rigorous Romanizing campaign. Recalled to his diocese of Porto, he became influential in the church. He was excommunicated by Pope John VIII for leading the party that opposed John's coronation of Charles the Bald. Later, he was restored and was subsequently elected pope. Involved in the dispute over the imperial power, he sided against the dukes of Spoleto, whose growing power was menacing the papacy. However, he was forced to crown Guido, duke of Spoleto, and his son Lambert. Formosus encouraged the German claimant, Arnulf , to invade Italy and crowned (896) him emperor. After Formosus' death, the Spoletos came into power. He was succeeded by Boniface VI. Formosus' grave was desecrated, and his pontificate declared invalid. In 897 he was reinterred, and Pope John XI validated his acts.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: Roman Catholic Popes and Antipopes | <urn:uuid:f24882bb-e7e6-48c0-a4dc-17d4716b49ff> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/religion/christian/popes/formosus | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00392.warc.gz | en | 0.980115 | 279 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.36982065439224243,
0.20766057074069977,
0.3157423734664917,
-0.3096931576728821,
-0.263648122549057,
-0.11008460074663162,
-0.04599582776427269,
0.5166271924972534,
-0.07280918955802917,
-0.09794111549854279,
-0.43748098611831665,
-0.39904043078422546,
-0.08561784029006958,
0.1081778109... | 1 | Formosus fôrmō´səs [key], c.816–896, pope (891–96), probably a Roman; successor of Stephen VI. Under Pope Nicholas I he had been bishop in Bulgaria, where he pursued a rigorous Romanizing campaign. Recalled to his diocese of Porto, he became influential in the church. He was excommunicated by Pope John VIII for leading the party that opposed John's coronation of Charles the Bald. Later, he was restored and was subsequently elected pope. Involved in the dispute over the imperial power, he sided against the dukes of Spoleto, whose growing power was menacing the papacy. However, he was forced to crown Guido, duke of Spoleto, and his son Lambert. Formosus encouraged the German claimant, Arnulf , to invade Italy and crowned (896) him emperor. After Formosus' death, the Spoletos came into power. He was succeeded by Boniface VI. Formosus' grave was desecrated, and his pontificate declared invalid. In 897 he was reinterred, and Pope John XI validated his acts.
The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.
See more Encyclopedia articles on: Roman Catholic Popes and Antipopes | 287 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Form of christianity dating back to luther and calvin
It was only as late as the 1540s, when Calvin was in the process of establishing his radical reformed churches, that attitudes began to harden.Catholic leaders became convinced that the Protestants were inflicting irreparable damage on the Church.
The Jesuits, as they came to be called, were a new form of religious order which was not tied down to a monastery but whose members were free to travel anywhere they were sent.
As a result, the Jesuits soon found themselves not only as defenders of the faith but also teachers in high places such as the courts of bishops, princes and popes.
They also stressed blind obedience to the Papacy (called Ultramontanism) for which they became positively disliked by many of the less orthodox Catholics, such as those in France.
The Catholic Church was very slow to reform itself.
It presumed that the Reformation was merely a small hiccup in the greater tapestry of life and that it would soon go away. | <urn:uuid:31fd4a45-6781-4d78-9ba3-61f6ad357cf8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://rybtpp.ru/form-of-christianity-dating-back-to-luther-and-calvin-18501.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00220.warc.gz | en | 0.995122 | 214 | 3.765625 | 4 | [
-0.18210698664188385,
0.02083170972764492,
-0.10848277807235718,
0.15799668431282043,
0.05276992544531822,
-0.020446496084332466,
-0.6529011726379395,
0.12183669954538345,
0.3970668613910675,
0.18534420430660248,
-0.02070838212966919,
0.056373123079538345,
-0.03869236260652542,
-0.08233853... | 1 | Form of christianity dating back to luther and calvin
It was only as late as the 1540s, when Calvin was in the process of establishing his radical reformed churches, that attitudes began to harden.Catholic leaders became convinced that the Protestants were inflicting irreparable damage on the Church.
The Jesuits, as they came to be called, were a new form of religious order which was not tied down to a monastery but whose members were free to travel anywhere they were sent.
As a result, the Jesuits soon found themselves not only as defenders of the faith but also teachers in high places such as the courts of bishops, princes and popes.
They also stressed blind obedience to the Papacy (called Ultramontanism) for which they became positively disliked by many of the less orthodox Catholics, such as those in France.
The Catholic Church was very slow to reform itself.
It presumed that the Reformation was merely a small hiccup in the greater tapestry of life and that it would soon go away. | 212 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Education has always been influenced by gender, class, religion and nationality. Historically, women’s education in Britain was designed to teach middle class and upper class girls enough to make them attractive marriage material for men, and lessons were often taught in the home by poorly educated governesses.
Education was seen as a way of making women better wives and mothers, not as a way of transforming their lives. One parliamentary report in the 19th century said girls should be educated to be ‘decorative, modest, marriageable beings’. Lessons often included music, Latin, Greek and classes in social graces and etiquette. Only the very privileged few were taught to a high level in subjects such as mathematics and this was usually alongside their brothers.
Women’s education always conformed to class expectations. Working class girls, if they were educated at all, were taught the very basics of reading, writing, arithmetic and domestic skills such as needlework. They were taught in elementary schools, often dame schools – small schools run by working class women in their own home – or Sunday schools run by the church or charities. Women were not encouraged to have academic aspirations in case it undermined their attachment to the home and it was believed that academic study was against women’s nature and that too much knowledge could affect women’s fertility. Church leaders were often against the higher education of women because they said it went against the teachings of the Bible.
The painfully slow process of education reform began in the 1840s after it was acknowledged that if women were the first educators of children, then they needed a solid education. Educational opportunity was still in the gift of men and by 1864, it was noted that only 12 public secondary schools for girls existed in England and Wales. These early schools for women supported the findings of a report by the Taunton Commission which said, in the 1860s, that men and women had the same mental capacity.
Momentum was gathering and organisations such as The Langham Place Group, which campaigned for women’s rights, were founded. The National Union for Improving the Education of Women started in 1871 and by 1900 there were more than 30 fee-paying boarding schools for women. Opportunities for working class girls, however, were limited well into the 20th century.
Pioneering headmistresses at the early schools for girls switched the focus from domestic accomplishments to academic excellence and Anne Jemima Clough, Newnham’s first principal, made allowances for women who had gaps in their education and tailored the curriculum to her female students to allow them to take longer to prepare for Cambridge exams if necessary.
The founders of Girton College, Cambridge’s first women’s college, and Newnham, its second, recognised and campaigned for the standards of higher education to be improved so that women could compete with men at the highest level.
It wasn’t until 1918 that The Education Act raised the compulsory school leaving age to 14 for both boys and girls.
In the 21st century, Newnham College continues to challenge stereotypes and limitations. We pride ourselves on being a place at which people can fulfill their potential, wherever that journey may lead us.
Find out about student life at Newnham College today.
Find out about research at Newnham College today. | <urn:uuid:130dbd79-6819-414c-98b2-8e9b36948287> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.newn.cam.ac.uk/about/history/womens-education/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00317.warc.gz | en | 0.990507 | 682 | 3.75 | 4 | [
0.37244683504104614,
0.292810320854187,
0.4722875952720642,
-0.09900631010532379,
-0.0880376324057579,
0.35211580991744995,
-0.4480469226837158,
0.13784494996070862,
0.11432287842035294,
-0.13348868489265442,
-0.21393653750419617,
-0.14875587821006775,
0.2508341073989868,
0.045535795390605... | 14 | Education has always been influenced by gender, class, religion and nationality. Historically, women’s education in Britain was designed to teach middle class and upper class girls enough to make them attractive marriage material for men, and lessons were often taught in the home by poorly educated governesses.
Education was seen as a way of making women better wives and mothers, not as a way of transforming their lives. One parliamentary report in the 19th century said girls should be educated to be ‘decorative, modest, marriageable beings’. Lessons often included music, Latin, Greek and classes in social graces and etiquette. Only the very privileged few were taught to a high level in subjects such as mathematics and this was usually alongside their brothers.
Women’s education always conformed to class expectations. Working class girls, if they were educated at all, were taught the very basics of reading, writing, arithmetic and domestic skills such as needlework. They were taught in elementary schools, often dame schools – small schools run by working class women in their own home – or Sunday schools run by the church or charities. Women were not encouraged to have academic aspirations in case it undermined their attachment to the home and it was believed that academic study was against women’s nature and that too much knowledge could affect women’s fertility. Church leaders were often against the higher education of women because they said it went against the teachings of the Bible.
The painfully slow process of education reform began in the 1840s after it was acknowledged that if women were the first educators of children, then they needed a solid education. Educational opportunity was still in the gift of men and by 1864, it was noted that only 12 public secondary schools for girls existed in England and Wales. These early schools for women supported the findings of a report by the Taunton Commission which said, in the 1860s, that men and women had the same mental capacity.
Momentum was gathering and organisations such as The Langham Place Group, which campaigned for women’s rights, were founded. The National Union for Improving the Education of Women started in 1871 and by 1900 there were more than 30 fee-paying boarding schools for women. Opportunities for working class girls, however, were limited well into the 20th century.
Pioneering headmistresses at the early schools for girls switched the focus from domestic accomplishments to academic excellence and Anne Jemima Clough, Newnham’s first principal, made allowances for women who had gaps in their education and tailored the curriculum to her female students to allow them to take longer to prepare for Cambridge exams if necessary.
The founders of Girton College, Cambridge’s first women’s college, and Newnham, its second, recognised and campaigned for the standards of higher education to be improved so that women could compete with men at the highest level.
It wasn’t until 1918 that The Education Act raised the compulsory school leaving age to 14 for both boys and girls.
In the 21st century, Newnham College continues to challenge stereotypes and limitations. We pride ourselves on being a place at which people can fulfill their potential, wherever that journey may lead us.
Find out about student life at Newnham College today.
Find out about research at Newnham College today. | 683 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Marie Curie is one of the most famous lady scientists who became the first lady to earn a Nobel Prize. She also won a 2nd Nobel Prize for discovering two new elements and also became the first person for getting two Nobel Prizes.
Marie Curie was born in 1867 in Poland that was the part Russian Empire at that time. Her parents were teachers and she was their fifth and youngest child. She became a very bright student due to her parents’ efforts that were both teachers.
When Marie was young, her parents involved in a patriotic movement for independence of Poland from Russia. Due to this reason, they lost their jobs, property, and faced a very tough time along with their children. Due to the loss of fortune, Marie had to struggle a lot in his life; especially for getting education.
Marie successfully graduated from a college in Poland and earned a gold medal while struggling financially. She wanted to study further but was unable to get admission in universities of Poland. So, she tried to get admission at Sorbonne University in Paris, France with the help of his elder sister.
She continued his higher education in France and successfully got a Physics degree because she wanted to be a scientist in physics. While studying at the university, Marie got married to Pierre Curie who was also a scientist.
Marie worked a lot on radioactive elements and was exposed to high energy radiation much longer. Due to overexposure to radiation, she felt ill and died at the age of 67 years in 1934.
Scientific Discoveries and Contributions
William Roentgen has discovered X-rays and in the same period, Henry Becquerel discovered radioactivity of elements. When Marie Curie discovered the phenomenon of radioactivity, she became very interested in working on radioactivity further. While studying and working on the radioactivity phenomenon, she discovered new elements.
Discovering New Elements
Marie along with his husband Pierre Curie began working on the mineral of Uranium, pitchblende, from which Henry Becquerel discovered radioactivity. Marie and Pierre Curie did a lot of experiments on pitchblende and found that the pitchblende was giving more radiations than the amount of Uranium present in it. So they doubted that maybe there is another radioactive element yet unknown but present in the pitchblende along with Uranium.
Marie analyzed the pitchblende further and found that there are actually two new elements in the sample of mineral. She named the two elements; Polonium and Radium. Due to the discovery of the two new elements, Marie Curie and Pierre Curie both got Nobel Prize in 1911. Marie and Pierre also got Nobel Prize in 1903 before the discovery of new elements due to their work on radiation.
- Marie helped in World War I by suggesting that, X-rays can be used to take inside-image of injured soldiers’ bodies.
- Irene was the eldest child of Marie and Pierre Curie. She has won a Nobel Prize for his work on radiations and aluminum metal.
- In 1921, Marie Curie has founded a facility for research on cancer. This research facility is also one of the major facilities in Paris today. | <urn:uuid:d8c5713b-79d4-4039-91dd-fbdc696b743c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://science4fun.info/marie-curie/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00472.warc.gz | en | 0.985032 | 649 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.09664680063724518,
0.38400745391845703,
0.018871143460273743,
-0.050270840525627136,
0.21352475881576538,
-0.00451530609279871,
0.08690875768661499,
0.11198429763317108,
-0.2888752818107605,
-0.2187102735042572,
0.09874917566776276,
-0.39621222019195557,
0.05465678870677948,
0.237834095... | 15 | Marie Curie is one of the most famous lady scientists who became the first lady to earn a Nobel Prize. She also won a 2nd Nobel Prize for discovering two new elements and also became the first person for getting two Nobel Prizes.
Marie Curie was born in 1867 in Poland that was the part Russian Empire at that time. Her parents were teachers and she was their fifth and youngest child. She became a very bright student due to her parents’ efforts that were both teachers.
When Marie was young, her parents involved in a patriotic movement for independence of Poland from Russia. Due to this reason, they lost their jobs, property, and faced a very tough time along with their children. Due to the loss of fortune, Marie had to struggle a lot in his life; especially for getting education.
Marie successfully graduated from a college in Poland and earned a gold medal while struggling financially. She wanted to study further but was unable to get admission in universities of Poland. So, she tried to get admission at Sorbonne University in Paris, France with the help of his elder sister.
She continued his higher education in France and successfully got a Physics degree because she wanted to be a scientist in physics. While studying at the university, Marie got married to Pierre Curie who was also a scientist.
Marie worked a lot on radioactive elements and was exposed to high energy radiation much longer. Due to overexposure to radiation, she felt ill and died at the age of 67 years in 1934.
Scientific Discoveries and Contributions
William Roentgen has discovered X-rays and in the same period, Henry Becquerel discovered radioactivity of elements. When Marie Curie discovered the phenomenon of radioactivity, she became very interested in working on radioactivity further. While studying and working on the radioactivity phenomenon, she discovered new elements.
Discovering New Elements
Marie along with his husband Pierre Curie began working on the mineral of Uranium, pitchblende, from which Henry Becquerel discovered radioactivity. Marie and Pierre Curie did a lot of experiments on pitchblende and found that the pitchblende was giving more radiations than the amount of Uranium present in it. So they doubted that maybe there is another radioactive element yet unknown but present in the pitchblende along with Uranium.
Marie analyzed the pitchblende further and found that there are actually two new elements in the sample of mineral. She named the two elements; Polonium and Radium. Due to the discovery of the two new elements, Marie Curie and Pierre Curie both got Nobel Prize in 1911. Marie and Pierre also got Nobel Prize in 1903 before the discovery of new elements due to their work on radiation.
- Marie helped in World War I by suggesting that, X-rays can be used to take inside-image of injured soldiers’ bodies.
- Irene was the eldest child of Marie and Pierre Curie. She has won a Nobel Prize for his work on radiations and aluminum metal.
- In 1921, Marie Curie has founded a facility for research on cancer. This research facility is also one of the major facilities in Paris today. | 657 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A thought-provoking study of Andrew Jackson chronicles the life and career of a self-made man who went on to become a military hero and seventh president of the United States, critically analyzing Jackson's seminal role during a turbulent era in history, the political crises and personal upheaval that surrounded him, and his legacy for the modern presidency.
Jackson appointed John Henry Eaton as his Secretary of War. Jackson had been instrumental in introducing Eaton to his wife, Margaret. Margaret became a liability for both Eton and Jackson because she was intemperate and outspoken and because she seems to have married Eaton while still married to another man. Jackson had great sympathy for the Eatons, perhaps because their situation was somewhat similar to Jackson’s with his wife, Rachael, whom he may have married a little before her divorce.
Meacham expends many words on the Eaton affair as a public scandal and source of contention in his cabinet, and perhaps that is appropriate. At least one entire cabinet meeting was devoted to resolving how to deal with the issue. Indeed, Meacham attributes the success of Martin Van Buren and the failure of John C. Calhoun to influence Jackson to their respective stances on the Eaton affair. Yet, I can’t help thinking Meacham could have devoted more space to issues like Indian removal and the Bank of the United States and less to the question of which Washington wives were willing to exchange visits with the Eatons.
One issue Meacham does handle adroitly is that of the crisis over the tariff and South Carolina’s efforts to “nullify” it. Southern planters did not like having to pay Yankee manufacturers “exorbitant” prices for goods. Had not a comprehensive protective tariff been imposed upon them by the northern states, the goods could have been purchased from foreign suppliers at lower prices. Of even more concern to Southerners was the possibility that the northern states would use their leverage to restrict or eliminate slavery through legislation. Thus Calhoun and others promulgated a doctrine of nullification that would have permitted individual states to ignore federal legislation unfavorable to them.
Jackson saw the nullification theory as tantamount to the power to secede from the Union. Jackson asked for and received from Congress authority to enforce the tariff by military force if necessary. However, he was also instrumental in reducing the rates of many of the import duties. One of the main thrusts of Jackson’s second inaugural address was directed to opposing the nullification doctrine. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln analyzed Jackson’s address in formulating his own legal theories in opposition to the South’s later secession. The combination of the authorized military action, reduced duties, and Jackson’s eloquence was sufficient to defuse the nullification crisis, and the southern states did not ignore federal law for another twenty-four years.
In contrast to his coverage of nullification, Meacham says little about Indian removal (the forceful relocation of virtually all Indians from the southern states to lands west of the Mississippi) except to point out that Jackson was its leading proponent. (Georgians wanted their valuable land for themselves and the state legislature enacted laws designed to force the natives to migrate west. John Marshall's Supreme Court declared the Georgia laws invalid, but Jackson ignored this decision. When the Cherokees refused to leave, Jackson sent troops who forced them at gunpoint to sign a treaty giving up their lands. Three years later they were driven along the "trail of tears" to the barren wastes of Indian Territory (today's Oklahoma). Thousands died during or just after this journey.)
Even less satisfying is Meacham’s treatment of the controversy over the Bank of the United States, the brain child of Alexander Hamilton. We learn that Jackson was against it, saying it financed the political campaigns of his enemies, and that Nicholas Biddle, the Bank president, was for it. Nowhere does he discuss the merits of the bank (remember, this was before there was a federal reserve) or whether Jackson’s allegations of favoritism toward his rivals had any substance to them. Only one paragraph is devoted to the fact that a financial panic and severe depression struck the country only months after Jackson left office. Meacham mentions that there is “much historical debate” over the effects of Jackson’s economic policies, but doesn’t characterize or even describe the debate.
Meacham’s description of Jackson as a person is well wrought. He owned 150 slaves, and freed none of them, even upon his death. He was formidable and an exceptionally strong leader. After Jackson’s death, when one of his slaves was asked whether he thought Jackson had gone to heaven, the slave answered, “If the General wants to go, who’s going to stop him?”
He was the first president to use the veto power against legislation simply because he disagreed with it—prior presidents had vetoed only bills they thought were unconstitutional. He justified his exercise of power on the fact that the president was the only person elected by “all the people.” In those days, senators were elected by state legislatures. This exercise of power, however, included the tendency to reward those loyal to him and punish his enemies. But the conflicts were couched in such a way as to make it seem as if it were the will of the people versus a disdainful elite. Meacham does not analyze the repercussions of this type of populism.
Rating: This book focuses too much on the personal to the detriment of the political. In the current political climate, readers could benefit by learning about a president who claimed to represent the little people, and then used to office to go after his internal enemies no matter what the cost to country and decency. Those who choose this book should make careful comparison to other historical treatments of Jackson, in order to get the full story.
American Lion concentrates on Jackson's presidency. Maybe it really was that unremarkable, but Meacham spends too much time doting on the largely uninteresting affairs of his associates and not enough discussing foreign policy or the forced removal of Native Americans beyond the Mississippi. Of the issues that are discussed at length was South Carolina's first attempt at seccession, and the destruction of the Second Bank of the US.
Jackson was very much a populist...Meacham tells us time and again that he was an ally of the people against the mechanations of the powerful elite. This laid the foundations of the Democratic Party. I didn't think he did a good job explaining how and why that mattered...how the common man benefited from the Bank destruction, or what they were thinking in the North when Calhoun and his cronies were trying to make a case for destroying the Union.
Meacham seemed intent on building sympathy for Jackson, beginning with the death of his beloved wife and the health problems and untimely deaths suffered by Jackson's inner circle and himself. I think Jackson would have mocked that characterization. He was a consummate hard-ass, who expected history to judge him favorably even if he was in a daily struggle. Kind of like this book.
Meacham does an excellent job of setting the stage by identifying the key issues of the day, some of which Jackson would struggle with throughout his two terms. These included: 1.) the power of Biddle's Second Bank of the United States, a Bank that Jackson believed made loans to influence elections, 2.) the possibility of South Carolina's secession, note this was almost 35 years before its actual occurrence in the early 60's triggering the Civil War, 3.) the removal of Native Americans to lands west of the Mississippi, 4.) separation of Church and State, 5.) the role of federal government v state government, 6.) pirates ! One theme that keeps repeating is that though the country had been formed more than 50 years ago, many officials were still debating what the US would be, the roles of the major branches of government, and the interpretation of founding documents. It was very interesting to read of situations and arguments that sound amazingly similar to many events that take place today in Washington.
Then there are the practices in Jackson's time that have changed. Things like daily horse rides through the streets of DC with VP Martin Van Buren, or the tawdry idea that candidates, especially the President, would openly campaign for office. And for those readers who enjoy soap opera, there is the Eaton affair, which consumed much of DC throughout Jackson's first term - amazing as it was, it got a bit boring after a while.
All things considered, a 5 star book. I am glad to see the Pulitzer committee agrees with me. I am flabbergasted that the book has such a low reader average score. By the way, my paperback edition was only 361 pages - not sure how one of the print editions got to over 500 pages. Hats off to Meacham who did the historian thing of giving all the facts and details, then analyzing them for historical context, but mostly for making the book very readable and enjoyable.
The better is shown by Jackson's actions during the Nullification Crisis, when he stared down South Carolina secessionists some 30 years before Abraham Lincoln would face them again, thereby giving Lincoln the precedent he needed. The worse is shown by the Trail of Tears and Jackson's support for censorship of abolitionists.
Meacham's portrait of Jackson dispels the image of him as a madman, but does not resort to hagiography. The book benefits from original research by Meacham, who read reams of contemporary letters to pull together a view of the Age of Jackson well deserving of the Pulitzer Prize.
After I read this Pulitzer Prize winning discussion of his years as President, I now know all I ever wanted to know (and a WHOLE lot I could have done without) about the ladies dispute over 'receiving' Mrs. Margaret Eaton, wife of his secretary of war. I seems Margaret was regarded as a rather loose woman by many of the grand dames of Washington, and the author chose to spend literally 100's of pages discussing the reactions to her and Jackson's insistence that the Eatons be treated with respect.
Meacham's theory seems to be that Jackson was sympathetic to the couple since he had undergone the same kind of shunning when he married Rachel.
Consequently, we are given short shrift on some of the more vital aspects of Jackson's life and presidency. For instance, Jackson's views on slavery are fairly glossed over. There are exactly 5 pages devoted to his ownership of slaves (he owned 150), and the fact that he did not ever free any of them. We hear nothing of his actual views of this abominable practice.
We are treated to his denunciations of the US Bank and pages upon pages of everything he did to try to disband it, but for those of us with a lack of indepth knowledge of the issue, we are never given a good reason WHY he wanted to disband the bank. Again we are treated to many many pages of personality conflicts of all the players in this debacle, but scant delineation about the issue itself.
We hear of Jackson's views on nullification and secession, and very his often conflicting views about the Native American population---I definitely would have liked to have had a much more indepth discussion of this vice the ladies tea party debates. Jackson's policies led directly to the Trail of Tears -- the forced expulsion of the Cherokees to western lands, but nowhere do we see how he reacted to it. We are given speeches in which he identified himself as the Great White father, and some indication that he felt justified in breaking treaties, but the subject deserves much more if this book were to truly explain Jackson's achievements.
Meacham posits that because Jackson was orphaned so young, he deeply missed having the opportunity of belonging to family. He saw the American people as his family, and used his popularity to enforce his views. He believed in a powerful executive. He was the first American president to have used the veto simply because he disagreed with a bill Congress had passed. Prior to Jackson, presidents had only vetoed bills they thought were unconstitutional. If you were white, you were entitled to the full protection of the government. If you were black or Native american, (or Mexican--we mustn't forget the few pages devoted to the Mexican wars), you didn't deserve the liberties spelled out in the Constitution.
Meacham sums it:
"(Jackson) also proved the principle that the character of the president matters enormously. Politics is about more than personality; the affairs of a great people are shaped by complex and messy forces that transcend the purely biographical. Those affairs, however, are also fundamentally affected by the complex and messy individuals who marshal and wield power in a given era. Jackson was a transformative president in part because he had a trancendent personality.....he gave his most imaginative successors the means to do things they thought right...
...The great often teach by their failures and derelictions. The tragedy of Jackson's life is that a man dedicated to freedom failed to see liberty as a universal, not a particular, gift. The triumph of his life is that he held together a country whose experiment in liberty ultimately extended its protections and promises to all--belatedly it is true, but by saving the Union, Jackson kept the possibility of progress alive, a possibility that would have died had secussion and separation carried the day."
Jackson certainly changed the role of the Presidency. Whether those changes were good or not so good is impossible to determine from reading only this book.
No wonder. In reading the author's acknowledgements, the "new material" he credits for informing his narrative are the letters and personal papers of President Jackson's family members and assistants who shared the White House with him. It's therefore as much their story we hearing as it is Jackson's own.
I chose to read the book because while I knew Andrew Jackson occupied the pantheon of great presidents, what earned him that place always seemed like a blur to me. When I was a kid, I was told he was a hero. When I grew older and learned of his involvement sending the natives in the SE United States on the Trail of Tears, I came to think of him as cruel and monstrous. This book helped to flesh out the picture, revealing that he was indeed a greatly flawed man but unquestionably a leader and one whose impact upon American history is still felt in important ways.
Furthermore, I learned not only about the man but about the era. The things I remember about Jackson from high school history was that he did something with tariffs and he killed the Bank of the United States (although the significance of either of those never registered with me). Somehow I missed the fact that he also finessed the first efforts at southern secession, perhaps preventing civil war a couple of decades before Lincoln.
It's also a crazy story, but Jackson's first term was overly occupied with his defense of the honor of the wife of a Cabinet secretary. His administration was nearly ruined by it. Never heard that in high school.
I've read that some serious Jackson scholars have some contentions with this book. But if someone wants to learn more about his presidency short of seeking a Ph.D. in Jackson studies, I would say this is a good place to start.
There is no doubt Andrew Jackson is one of the most important figures in American history. In many ways he defined the modern Presidency. He was the first President to use the veto in a political way, the first who actively tried to influence legislative action proactively rather than waiting for Congress to act, the first to assert the Presidential prerogative of determining the constitutionality of laws, and the first to take his message directly to the American people rather than go through Congress or by one of the constitutionally mandated means. Meacham describes all of this very well. He is an excellent writer; his prose was clear and easy to understand, and he did a nice job of bringing Jackson to life as it were.
The first thing that separated this work from others on Jackson was Meacham’s treatment of a scandal known as the “Eaton Affair.” The “Eaton Affair” is well known by historians; there have been a number of books written about it, Meacham however, really elevates the importance of it to a new level, and seems to argue much of what Jackson did during most of his first term was directly affected by it. The “Eaton Affair’ involved Peggy Eaton, the wife of John Henry Eaton, Andrew Jackson’s Secretary of War. She had a rather bawdy reputation and was shunned and ridiculed by the society of political wives in Washington DC. Andrew Jackson, sensitive to the way his first wife was treated by society and by the media reacted very angrily to her treatment which caused a significant political rupture between Jackson and other high level officials – including Vice President John C. Calhoun. I thought this ws an interesting, and pretty persuasive take on Jackson’s first term.
A good book on this “scandal” if you are interested is The Petticoat Affair by John Marszalek.
The second noteworthy thing about this work was small number of pages devoted to Jackson’s Indian removal policy. Every President has a stain on his administration – Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans, Wilson’s racism, Reagan’s indifference to the burgeoning AIDS crisis etc. In this case Jackson, under the guise of Indian protection, and in direct contravention of a Supreme Court ruling, undertook to remove most of the southern tribes of Indians; the Choctaws, Creek, Seminoles and Cherokees, west of the Mississippi. This resulted in the shameful removal of the Cherokees to the Oklahoma Territory in what is now known as the “Trail of Tears.” It seems Meacham purposely tried to downplay this aspect of Jackson’s administration, not even mentioning it in the epilogue which discusses his legacy. For me this effectively ruined what had otherwise been a very solid book.
An excellent account of Jackson’s Indian policy is Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars by Robert Remini.
Overall a good read, but considering the downplay of Jackson’s Indian policy the book end up reading more like a paean to Jackson than an objective biography.
Many of the features of the presidency that we take for granted had their start with Jackson. He believed the power of the Presidency should be expanded at the expense of the legislative branch. While the details have changed this seems to be an ongoing effort that continues today. The more I read about America's early days, the more I find they were very similar to today.
I did have one issue with the book, the footnotes. I am a big believer in footnotes and have a hard time reading non-fiction without them. I did not like the way Meacham’s notes were done. The actual notes were at the end of the book and were used primarily for direct quotation. The reader is forced to determine which of several quotations they are looking for, as the only reference is the page number, with several notes for each page. There was nothing in the text to indicate there was a note for it.
Overall, I enjoyed reading American Lion and would recommend it to anyone interested in American history between the Revolution and the Civil War. It may not be for those with more intimate knowledge of the period, but for the rest of us it serves as a good introduction to both Andrew Jackson and the people around him.
I received a review copy of this book from the Library Thing Early Reviewer program.
Jackson broke the mold of presidents at that time. He was a fighter, a pioneer, a country boy, the opposite of the elite group of founding fathers in New England. I think he rivals Teddy Roosevelt for the title of most badass president of all time. At one point he was shot in the chest during a duel and he kept fighting!
He was more astute than most people gave him credit for. His critics often focused on his temper and stubborn nature, but he seemed to know when to back down or be cordial if he would benefit from it. He was fiercely loyal to his family and friends, at times to a fault. I thought it was interesting that even hundreds of years ago, the presidential office was filled with scandal and petty fights, etc. That was nothing new in the 20th century.
Jackson had his own moral code and he stuck by it. There are certainly some dark spots during his tenure as president, especially the trail of tears, which was created by his policy even if it was enacted in another president's term. Just like any other president, there were both good decisions and bad, and I’m sure that it’s much easier for us to judge them with hindsight.
BOTTOM LINE: Jackson was such an interesting president! Also, I’ll keep reading whatever Meacham chooses to write. He’s up there on my list of must read nonfiction authors with Erik Larson, Mary Roach, Bill Bryson, and a few others. I didn’t love this one as much as the author’s biography of Thomas Jefferson, but I think that has more to do with my fascinating with Jefferson.
“I was born for a storm and a calm does not suit me.”
The book spends a great deal of time on three issues of Jackson’s presidency: the political and societal hubbub surrounding Jackson’s choice for Secretary of War, John Eaton – or more appropriately, surrounding his wife, Margaret; his opposition to the Second Bank of the United States; and his fight against nullification, or what Jackson called “the mad project of disunion.” The coverage of the first, often dubbed the “Petticoat Affair,” seemed to drag on after awhile and made me feel like I was reading the 19th century version of the celebrity tabloids.
Jackson viewed himself (as president) as the people’s representative, sometimes to the point of a quasi-dictatorial aura. He was an incredibly strong willed individual who used his power and influence over family, friends and enemies alike to get what he wanted. Meacham’s descriptions of this aspect of Jackson, however, seem almost to excuse his actions. Meacham also focused on the fact that Jackson expanded the powers of the president exponentially above any of his six predecessors, particularly through the use of the presidential veto.
Although the book is specifically about his presidential life (thus the subtitle Andrew Jackson in the White House), I wish it had covered a little more of the background of how exactly Jackson got to the White House. Additionally, Meacham uses a writing style that follows a chronological approach and as a result, feels incredibly cumbersome and disjointed. One section of a chapter will be discussing a particular issue, only to have the next paragraph jump to completely unrelated one without warning and then back to the first just as suddenly.
While the three subjects mentioned above received extensive coverage, Jackson’s policies and dealings with Native Americans gets comparatively little coverage. Considering that this topic is perhaps one most associated with Jackson’s presidency, I was surprised and disappointed that Meacham did not spend more time on the topic. Even though Meacham’s disclaimer of the book not being “an academic study of [Jackson’s] presidency” gives him some excuse for not spending more time on this issue, I expected a book of this size and renown to have more coverage than it did, especially considering the attention given to the Eaton affair.
Overall, American Lion is a good introduction to Jackson’s presidency. While lacking in details such as his earlier life and rise into politics, it gave some good insights into how Jackson expanded the power of the president.
Winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Biography, the well-reviewed volume tackles the notoriously prickly Jackson, arguing that the elder Jackson might be more interesting than the middle age 'Hero of New Orleans' or even the hot-headed man who fought a duel over his wife's honor. Instead, Meacham describes a man who overcame significant setbacks in his life, from the death of his father shortly before his birth to the death of his beloved wife shortly before his inauguration as President, Jackson rose from humble beginnings to national stature in the military and in politics.
As might be expected from a man who did not know his own father, Jackson placed great emphasis on family in his adult life. In fact, Meacham argues that Jackson had a carefully constructed self-image as a father figure that guided most of his interactions. He was the undisputed father-figure in his own family from middle-age on, doting in particular on his favorite nephew. This self-image crept into other parts of Jackson's adult life too, affecting how he treated the soldiers under his command and the politicians who worked alongside him (particularly his cabinet). One could imagine that Jackson even envisioned himself, once he assumed the presidency, as taking the seat of George Washington, not only as chief national executive but as father of the country.
This attitude seems to have encouraged Jackson's frequent urges to micro-manage all aspects of his life -- and the lives of those around him. When a scandal broke out early in his administration related to the wife of a cabinet secretary rumored to have a salacious past, Jackson spent a lot of energy and time trying to force Washington society, including other cabinet secretaries and their wives, to accept the embattled couple.
The paternalism also saw him through his trials, particularly the endless debate over the national bank (which Jackson successfully killed and prevented from being reestablished through careful maneuvering) and the nullification crisis of 1833. Of course, it also allowed him to ruthlessly shun any whom he felt had crossed him -- which occurred to many, even in his own family, in later years.
Meacham has produced a lively text, filled with carefully selected quotations from Jackson and his associates that add a dramatic quality to the narrative. Aside from the quality of the writing, which is excellent throughout, Meacham shows a breathtaking economy in telling the story of Jackson's life, keeping things fairly brief without ever seeming to cut for length. This volume will prove both enjoyable to the average reader and influential for future biographers.
The author succeeds at letting the reader see the personal side of Jackson. I would be more interested in a book that goes into more depth about the political side and issues of the day such as nullification, secession, the bank charter, dealings with the Indians, etc. At least now I know enough about this period of 19th century American history to know what to look for in the future.
* Jackson claimed South Carolina as his home state, but there is some dispute as to whether he was born in North Carolina or South Carolina. Ironically, South Carolina caused a lot of controversy during Jackson’s administration. There was lots of talk of nullification and even a vote approving it once, but Jackson managed to keep the Union together while he was in office.
* He changed the address in diplomatic correspondence – in the past, official correspondence from foreign countries was addressed to ” the President and Congress of the United States;” Jackson said all correspondence should be addressed to “the President of the United States of America.”
* Jackson was the first President to use the veto liberally and as a political weapon.
* The first assassination attempt against a President occurred when Robert B. Randolph tried to kill Jackson.
* Congress censured Andrew Jackson in 1834 for the removal of funds from the Second Bank of America.
* Jackson was responsible for the displacement of many Indians – he disregarded earlier treaties.
* Jackson’s wife, Rachel, was still married to her first husband when she married Jackson.
* Since Andrew and Rachel couldn’t have any children, they adopted one of Rachel’s brother’s twins.
American Lion is a fascinating book – I would say the readability falls between a textbook and a novel. I found myself taking notes, because this book is not a light read, but it is well worth the time it takes to read it. Don’t let the size intimidate you – there are over 100 pages of notes, etc in the back. One thing did disappoint me, though. I thought our forefathers were more honorable than people are today and I was sorry to discover they weren’t. Jackson’s term was marred by a sex scandal, the Presidential elections went on for too long, and there was plenty of political underhandedness going on. It just goes to show you – the more things change, the more they stay the same. History buffs are sure to love this thoroughly researched, well-written book.
The account spends an inordinate amount of time examining the squabble among the women in Washington concerning the wife of his secretary of the army - the so-called Petticoat Affair. It spends a lot of time on Jackson's campaign to defeat the Bank of the US in its bid for re-certification without adequately explaining why he was opposed to its existence. Also highlighted here is the nullification issue - a big piece in the states' rights argument that led to the civil war. In fact, during Jackson's administration in the 1830's, many in the country believed that civil war was imminent. One of Jackson's accomplishments in office was to neutralize some of the hostilities, postponing the war for more than 20 years.
Like anyone else, Jackson was neither all good nor all bad. He was a slave owner who never freed any of his slaves. He was also behind the forced removal of the Indian nations from the southern states, the "Trail of Tears". Yet, he honestly believed he had the best interests of the union at heart. He saw himself as a father figure to the common people of America.
Biographies are not my favorite reading. I generally find them tedious. This one was no exception. I feel better acquainted with President Andrew Jackson than before, but don't have a full appreciation for the man and his personal and military accomplishments outside of Washington. Nor do I feel like I have a better understanding of most of the issues facing the nation during that time. Of course considering that the subtitle is "Andrew Jackson in the White House", I guess those points are beyond the scope of this book.
Jackson lost his parents at a very young age, consequently he had a very powerful need to be surrounded by his family. When his beloved wife Rachel died a few weeks before he assumed the power of the presidency that role was filled by his young niece Emily and her husband Andrew Jackson Donelson. Unfortunately this arrangement was seriously disturbed on their arrival when one of the president's most trusted advisers, John Eaton, married Peggy O'Neill, who was considered less than acceptable by Washington society. The brouhaha that ensued changed history and may have even been a factor in bringing about the American Civil War.
Once they get rid of Mrs. Eaton things get calmer on the home front while the political situation heats up considerably. Besides destroying the Cherokee Nation's dream to live alongside the white man, Jackson had Calhoun and the Nullifiers to outwit, the bank of the United States to destroy, a nasty confrontation with the French to get past, not to mention giving moral support to the effort to declare Texan independence. He did it by using the presidency in a manner that concentrated power in a way that had never been dared before. He showed how much personality defines a presidency and, for better or worse, changed the nature of the office forever. It went from an office that served at the sufferance of Congress, to one that drives the agenda of government.
This book, more than any other I've read about the time, explores the human side of Jackson's administration and shows how personality and seemingly innocuous events can shape history. | <urn:uuid:391088ae-7c10-4843-bb66-38d196730f8f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.librarycat.org/lib/FolioSeattle/item/125691902 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610919.33/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123131001-20200123160001-00020.warc.gz | en | 0.983543 | 6,607 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.42948952317237854,
0.5919644832611084,
0.3702492117881775,
-0.16513806581497192,
0.4005686044692993,
0.57032310962677,
0.3917592465877533,
0.12749946117401123,
-0.1661565899848938,
-0.43361330032348633,
-0.06069154292345047,
0.3261944055557251,
0.27768659591674805,
0.345417320728302,
... | 6 | A thought-provoking study of Andrew Jackson chronicles the life and career of a self-made man who went on to become a military hero and seventh president of the United States, critically analyzing Jackson's seminal role during a turbulent era in history, the political crises and personal upheaval that surrounded him, and his legacy for the modern presidency.
Jackson appointed John Henry Eaton as his Secretary of War. Jackson had been instrumental in introducing Eaton to his wife, Margaret. Margaret became a liability for both Eton and Jackson because she was intemperate and outspoken and because she seems to have married Eaton while still married to another man. Jackson had great sympathy for the Eatons, perhaps because their situation was somewhat similar to Jackson’s with his wife, Rachael, whom he may have married a little before her divorce.
Meacham expends many words on the Eaton affair as a public scandal and source of contention in his cabinet, and perhaps that is appropriate. At least one entire cabinet meeting was devoted to resolving how to deal with the issue. Indeed, Meacham attributes the success of Martin Van Buren and the failure of John C. Calhoun to influence Jackson to their respective stances on the Eaton affair. Yet, I can’t help thinking Meacham could have devoted more space to issues like Indian removal and the Bank of the United States and less to the question of which Washington wives were willing to exchange visits with the Eatons.
One issue Meacham does handle adroitly is that of the crisis over the tariff and South Carolina’s efforts to “nullify” it. Southern planters did not like having to pay Yankee manufacturers “exorbitant” prices for goods. Had not a comprehensive protective tariff been imposed upon them by the northern states, the goods could have been purchased from foreign suppliers at lower prices. Of even more concern to Southerners was the possibility that the northern states would use their leverage to restrict or eliminate slavery through legislation. Thus Calhoun and others promulgated a doctrine of nullification that would have permitted individual states to ignore federal legislation unfavorable to them.
Jackson saw the nullification theory as tantamount to the power to secede from the Union. Jackson asked for and received from Congress authority to enforce the tariff by military force if necessary. However, he was also instrumental in reducing the rates of many of the import duties. One of the main thrusts of Jackson’s second inaugural address was directed to opposing the nullification doctrine. Indeed, Abraham Lincoln analyzed Jackson’s address in formulating his own legal theories in opposition to the South’s later secession. The combination of the authorized military action, reduced duties, and Jackson’s eloquence was sufficient to defuse the nullification crisis, and the southern states did not ignore federal law for another twenty-four years.
In contrast to his coverage of nullification, Meacham says little about Indian removal (the forceful relocation of virtually all Indians from the southern states to lands west of the Mississippi) except to point out that Jackson was its leading proponent. (Georgians wanted their valuable land for themselves and the state legislature enacted laws designed to force the natives to migrate west. John Marshall's Supreme Court declared the Georgia laws invalid, but Jackson ignored this decision. When the Cherokees refused to leave, Jackson sent troops who forced them at gunpoint to sign a treaty giving up their lands. Three years later they were driven along the "trail of tears" to the barren wastes of Indian Territory (today's Oklahoma). Thousands died during or just after this journey.)
Even less satisfying is Meacham’s treatment of the controversy over the Bank of the United States, the brain child of Alexander Hamilton. We learn that Jackson was against it, saying it financed the political campaigns of his enemies, and that Nicholas Biddle, the Bank president, was for it. Nowhere does he discuss the merits of the bank (remember, this was before there was a federal reserve) or whether Jackson’s allegations of favoritism toward his rivals had any substance to them. Only one paragraph is devoted to the fact that a financial panic and severe depression struck the country only months after Jackson left office. Meacham mentions that there is “much historical debate” over the effects of Jackson’s economic policies, but doesn’t characterize or even describe the debate.
Meacham’s description of Jackson as a person is well wrought. He owned 150 slaves, and freed none of them, even upon his death. He was formidable and an exceptionally strong leader. After Jackson’s death, when one of his slaves was asked whether he thought Jackson had gone to heaven, the slave answered, “If the General wants to go, who’s going to stop him?”
He was the first president to use the veto power against legislation simply because he disagreed with it—prior presidents had vetoed only bills they thought were unconstitutional. He justified his exercise of power on the fact that the president was the only person elected by “all the people.” In those days, senators were elected by state legislatures. This exercise of power, however, included the tendency to reward those loyal to him and punish his enemies. But the conflicts were couched in such a way as to make it seem as if it were the will of the people versus a disdainful elite. Meacham does not analyze the repercussions of this type of populism.
Rating: This book focuses too much on the personal to the detriment of the political. In the current political climate, readers could benefit by learning about a president who claimed to represent the little people, and then used to office to go after his internal enemies no matter what the cost to country and decency. Those who choose this book should make careful comparison to other historical treatments of Jackson, in order to get the full story.
American Lion concentrates on Jackson's presidency. Maybe it really was that unremarkable, but Meacham spends too much time doting on the largely uninteresting affairs of his associates and not enough discussing foreign policy or the forced removal of Native Americans beyond the Mississippi. Of the issues that are discussed at length was South Carolina's first attempt at seccession, and the destruction of the Second Bank of the US.
Jackson was very much a populist...Meacham tells us time and again that he was an ally of the people against the mechanations of the powerful elite. This laid the foundations of the Democratic Party. I didn't think he did a good job explaining how and why that mattered...how the common man benefited from the Bank destruction, or what they were thinking in the North when Calhoun and his cronies were trying to make a case for destroying the Union.
Meacham seemed intent on building sympathy for Jackson, beginning with the death of his beloved wife and the health problems and untimely deaths suffered by Jackson's inner circle and himself. I think Jackson would have mocked that characterization. He was a consummate hard-ass, who expected history to judge him favorably even if he was in a daily struggle. Kind of like this book.
Meacham does an excellent job of setting the stage by identifying the key issues of the day, some of which Jackson would struggle with throughout his two terms. These included: 1.) the power of Biddle's Second Bank of the United States, a Bank that Jackson believed made loans to influence elections, 2.) the possibility of South Carolina's secession, note this was almost 35 years before its actual occurrence in the early 60's triggering the Civil War, 3.) the removal of Native Americans to lands west of the Mississippi, 4.) separation of Church and State, 5.) the role of federal government v state government, 6.) pirates ! One theme that keeps repeating is that though the country had been formed more than 50 years ago, many officials were still debating what the US would be, the roles of the major branches of government, and the interpretation of founding documents. It was very interesting to read of situations and arguments that sound amazingly similar to many events that take place today in Washington.
Then there are the practices in Jackson's time that have changed. Things like daily horse rides through the streets of DC with VP Martin Van Buren, or the tawdry idea that candidates, especially the President, would openly campaign for office. And for those readers who enjoy soap opera, there is the Eaton affair, which consumed much of DC throughout Jackson's first term - amazing as it was, it got a bit boring after a while.
All things considered, a 5 star book. I am glad to see the Pulitzer committee agrees with me. I am flabbergasted that the book has such a low reader average score. By the way, my paperback edition was only 361 pages - not sure how one of the print editions got to over 500 pages. Hats off to Meacham who did the historian thing of giving all the facts and details, then analyzing them for historical context, but mostly for making the book very readable and enjoyable.
The better is shown by Jackson's actions during the Nullification Crisis, when he stared down South Carolina secessionists some 30 years before Abraham Lincoln would face them again, thereby giving Lincoln the precedent he needed. The worse is shown by the Trail of Tears and Jackson's support for censorship of abolitionists.
Meacham's portrait of Jackson dispels the image of him as a madman, but does not resort to hagiography. The book benefits from original research by Meacham, who read reams of contemporary letters to pull together a view of the Age of Jackson well deserving of the Pulitzer Prize.
After I read this Pulitzer Prize winning discussion of his years as President, I now know all I ever wanted to know (and a WHOLE lot I could have done without) about the ladies dispute over 'receiving' Mrs. Margaret Eaton, wife of his secretary of war. I seems Margaret was regarded as a rather loose woman by many of the grand dames of Washington, and the author chose to spend literally 100's of pages discussing the reactions to her and Jackson's insistence that the Eatons be treated with respect.
Meacham's theory seems to be that Jackson was sympathetic to the couple since he had undergone the same kind of shunning when he married Rachel.
Consequently, we are given short shrift on some of the more vital aspects of Jackson's life and presidency. For instance, Jackson's views on slavery are fairly glossed over. There are exactly 5 pages devoted to his ownership of slaves (he owned 150), and the fact that he did not ever free any of them. We hear nothing of his actual views of this abominable practice.
We are treated to his denunciations of the US Bank and pages upon pages of everything he did to try to disband it, but for those of us with a lack of indepth knowledge of the issue, we are never given a good reason WHY he wanted to disband the bank. Again we are treated to many many pages of personality conflicts of all the players in this debacle, but scant delineation about the issue itself.
We hear of Jackson's views on nullification and secession, and very his often conflicting views about the Native American population---I definitely would have liked to have had a much more indepth discussion of this vice the ladies tea party debates. Jackson's policies led directly to the Trail of Tears -- the forced expulsion of the Cherokees to western lands, but nowhere do we see how he reacted to it. We are given speeches in which he identified himself as the Great White father, and some indication that he felt justified in breaking treaties, but the subject deserves much more if this book were to truly explain Jackson's achievements.
Meacham posits that because Jackson was orphaned so young, he deeply missed having the opportunity of belonging to family. He saw the American people as his family, and used his popularity to enforce his views. He believed in a powerful executive. He was the first American president to have used the veto simply because he disagreed with a bill Congress had passed. Prior to Jackson, presidents had only vetoed bills they thought were unconstitutional. If you were white, you were entitled to the full protection of the government. If you were black or Native american, (or Mexican--we mustn't forget the few pages devoted to the Mexican wars), you didn't deserve the liberties spelled out in the Constitution.
Meacham sums it:
"(Jackson) also proved the principle that the character of the president matters enormously. Politics is about more than personality; the affairs of a great people are shaped by complex and messy forces that transcend the purely biographical. Those affairs, however, are also fundamentally affected by the complex and messy individuals who marshal and wield power in a given era. Jackson was a transformative president in part because he had a trancendent personality.....he gave his most imaginative successors the means to do things they thought right...
...The great often teach by their failures and derelictions. The tragedy of Jackson's life is that a man dedicated to freedom failed to see liberty as a universal, not a particular, gift. The triumph of his life is that he held together a country whose experiment in liberty ultimately extended its protections and promises to all--belatedly it is true, but by saving the Union, Jackson kept the possibility of progress alive, a possibility that would have died had secussion and separation carried the day."
Jackson certainly changed the role of the Presidency. Whether those changes were good or not so good is impossible to determine from reading only this book.
No wonder. In reading the author's acknowledgements, the "new material" he credits for informing his narrative are the letters and personal papers of President Jackson's family members and assistants who shared the White House with him. It's therefore as much their story we hearing as it is Jackson's own.
I chose to read the book because while I knew Andrew Jackson occupied the pantheon of great presidents, what earned him that place always seemed like a blur to me. When I was a kid, I was told he was a hero. When I grew older and learned of his involvement sending the natives in the SE United States on the Trail of Tears, I came to think of him as cruel and monstrous. This book helped to flesh out the picture, revealing that he was indeed a greatly flawed man but unquestionably a leader and one whose impact upon American history is still felt in important ways.
Furthermore, I learned not only about the man but about the era. The things I remember about Jackson from high school history was that he did something with tariffs and he killed the Bank of the United States (although the significance of either of those never registered with me). Somehow I missed the fact that he also finessed the first efforts at southern secession, perhaps preventing civil war a couple of decades before Lincoln.
It's also a crazy story, but Jackson's first term was overly occupied with his defense of the honor of the wife of a Cabinet secretary. His administration was nearly ruined by it. Never heard that in high school.
I've read that some serious Jackson scholars have some contentions with this book. But if someone wants to learn more about his presidency short of seeking a Ph.D. in Jackson studies, I would say this is a good place to start.
There is no doubt Andrew Jackson is one of the most important figures in American history. In many ways he defined the modern Presidency. He was the first President to use the veto in a political way, the first who actively tried to influence legislative action proactively rather than waiting for Congress to act, the first to assert the Presidential prerogative of determining the constitutionality of laws, and the first to take his message directly to the American people rather than go through Congress or by one of the constitutionally mandated means. Meacham describes all of this very well. He is an excellent writer; his prose was clear and easy to understand, and he did a nice job of bringing Jackson to life as it were.
The first thing that separated this work from others on Jackson was Meacham’s treatment of a scandal known as the “Eaton Affair.” The “Eaton Affair” is well known by historians; there have been a number of books written about it, Meacham however, really elevates the importance of it to a new level, and seems to argue much of what Jackson did during most of his first term was directly affected by it. The “Eaton Affair’ involved Peggy Eaton, the wife of John Henry Eaton, Andrew Jackson’s Secretary of War. She had a rather bawdy reputation and was shunned and ridiculed by the society of political wives in Washington DC. Andrew Jackson, sensitive to the way his first wife was treated by society and by the media reacted very angrily to her treatment which caused a significant political rupture between Jackson and other high level officials – including Vice President John C. Calhoun. I thought this ws an interesting, and pretty persuasive take on Jackson’s first term.
A good book on this “scandal” if you are interested is The Petticoat Affair by John Marszalek.
The second noteworthy thing about this work was small number of pages devoted to Jackson’s Indian removal policy. Every President has a stain on his administration – Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese-Americans, Wilson’s racism, Reagan’s indifference to the burgeoning AIDS crisis etc. In this case Jackson, under the guise of Indian protection, and in direct contravention of a Supreme Court ruling, undertook to remove most of the southern tribes of Indians; the Choctaws, Creek, Seminoles and Cherokees, west of the Mississippi. This resulted in the shameful removal of the Cherokees to the Oklahoma Territory in what is now known as the “Trail of Tears.” It seems Meacham purposely tried to downplay this aspect of Jackson’s administration, not even mentioning it in the epilogue which discusses his legacy. For me this effectively ruined what had otherwise been a very solid book.
An excellent account of Jackson’s Indian policy is Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars by Robert Remini.
Overall a good read, but considering the downplay of Jackson’s Indian policy the book end up reading more like a paean to Jackson than an objective biography.
Many of the features of the presidency that we take for granted had their start with Jackson. He believed the power of the Presidency should be expanded at the expense of the legislative branch. While the details have changed this seems to be an ongoing effort that continues today. The more I read about America's early days, the more I find they were very similar to today.
I did have one issue with the book, the footnotes. I am a big believer in footnotes and have a hard time reading non-fiction without them. I did not like the way Meacham’s notes were done. The actual notes were at the end of the book and were used primarily for direct quotation. The reader is forced to determine which of several quotations they are looking for, as the only reference is the page number, with several notes for each page. There was nothing in the text to indicate there was a note for it.
Overall, I enjoyed reading American Lion and would recommend it to anyone interested in American history between the Revolution and the Civil War. It may not be for those with more intimate knowledge of the period, but for the rest of us it serves as a good introduction to both Andrew Jackson and the people around him.
I received a review copy of this book from the Library Thing Early Reviewer program.
Jackson broke the mold of presidents at that time. He was a fighter, a pioneer, a country boy, the opposite of the elite group of founding fathers in New England. I think he rivals Teddy Roosevelt for the title of most badass president of all time. At one point he was shot in the chest during a duel and he kept fighting!
He was more astute than most people gave him credit for. His critics often focused on his temper and stubborn nature, but he seemed to know when to back down or be cordial if he would benefit from it. He was fiercely loyal to his family and friends, at times to a fault. I thought it was interesting that even hundreds of years ago, the presidential office was filled with scandal and petty fights, etc. That was nothing new in the 20th century.
Jackson had his own moral code and he stuck by it. There are certainly some dark spots during his tenure as president, especially the trail of tears, which was created by his policy even if it was enacted in another president's term. Just like any other president, there were both good decisions and bad, and I’m sure that it’s much easier for us to judge them with hindsight.
BOTTOM LINE: Jackson was such an interesting president! Also, I’ll keep reading whatever Meacham chooses to write. He’s up there on my list of must read nonfiction authors with Erik Larson, Mary Roach, Bill Bryson, and a few others. I didn’t love this one as much as the author’s biography of Thomas Jefferson, but I think that has more to do with my fascinating with Jefferson.
“I was born for a storm and a calm does not suit me.”
The book spends a great deal of time on three issues of Jackson’s presidency: the political and societal hubbub surrounding Jackson’s choice for Secretary of War, John Eaton – or more appropriately, surrounding his wife, Margaret; his opposition to the Second Bank of the United States; and his fight against nullification, or what Jackson called “the mad project of disunion.” The coverage of the first, often dubbed the “Petticoat Affair,” seemed to drag on after awhile and made me feel like I was reading the 19th century version of the celebrity tabloids.
Jackson viewed himself (as president) as the people’s representative, sometimes to the point of a quasi-dictatorial aura. He was an incredibly strong willed individual who used his power and influence over family, friends and enemies alike to get what he wanted. Meacham’s descriptions of this aspect of Jackson, however, seem almost to excuse his actions. Meacham also focused on the fact that Jackson expanded the powers of the president exponentially above any of his six predecessors, particularly through the use of the presidential veto.
Although the book is specifically about his presidential life (thus the subtitle Andrew Jackson in the White House), I wish it had covered a little more of the background of how exactly Jackson got to the White House. Additionally, Meacham uses a writing style that follows a chronological approach and as a result, feels incredibly cumbersome and disjointed. One section of a chapter will be discussing a particular issue, only to have the next paragraph jump to completely unrelated one without warning and then back to the first just as suddenly.
While the three subjects mentioned above received extensive coverage, Jackson’s policies and dealings with Native Americans gets comparatively little coverage. Considering that this topic is perhaps one most associated with Jackson’s presidency, I was surprised and disappointed that Meacham did not spend more time on the topic. Even though Meacham’s disclaimer of the book not being “an academic study of [Jackson’s] presidency” gives him some excuse for not spending more time on this issue, I expected a book of this size and renown to have more coverage than it did, especially considering the attention given to the Eaton affair.
Overall, American Lion is a good introduction to Jackson’s presidency. While lacking in details such as his earlier life and rise into politics, it gave some good insights into how Jackson expanded the power of the president.
Winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Biography, the well-reviewed volume tackles the notoriously prickly Jackson, arguing that the elder Jackson might be more interesting than the middle age 'Hero of New Orleans' or even the hot-headed man who fought a duel over his wife's honor. Instead, Meacham describes a man who overcame significant setbacks in his life, from the death of his father shortly before his birth to the death of his beloved wife shortly before his inauguration as President, Jackson rose from humble beginnings to national stature in the military and in politics.
As might be expected from a man who did not know his own father, Jackson placed great emphasis on family in his adult life. In fact, Meacham argues that Jackson had a carefully constructed self-image as a father figure that guided most of his interactions. He was the undisputed father-figure in his own family from middle-age on, doting in particular on his favorite nephew. This self-image crept into other parts of Jackson's adult life too, affecting how he treated the soldiers under his command and the politicians who worked alongside him (particularly his cabinet). One could imagine that Jackson even envisioned himself, once he assumed the presidency, as taking the seat of George Washington, not only as chief national executive but as father of the country.
This attitude seems to have encouraged Jackson's frequent urges to micro-manage all aspects of his life -- and the lives of those around him. When a scandal broke out early in his administration related to the wife of a cabinet secretary rumored to have a salacious past, Jackson spent a lot of energy and time trying to force Washington society, including other cabinet secretaries and their wives, to accept the embattled couple.
The paternalism also saw him through his trials, particularly the endless debate over the national bank (which Jackson successfully killed and prevented from being reestablished through careful maneuvering) and the nullification crisis of 1833. Of course, it also allowed him to ruthlessly shun any whom he felt had crossed him -- which occurred to many, even in his own family, in later years.
Meacham has produced a lively text, filled with carefully selected quotations from Jackson and his associates that add a dramatic quality to the narrative. Aside from the quality of the writing, which is excellent throughout, Meacham shows a breathtaking economy in telling the story of Jackson's life, keeping things fairly brief without ever seeming to cut for length. This volume will prove both enjoyable to the average reader and influential for future biographers.
The author succeeds at letting the reader see the personal side of Jackson. I would be more interested in a book that goes into more depth about the political side and issues of the day such as nullification, secession, the bank charter, dealings with the Indians, etc. At least now I know enough about this period of 19th century American history to know what to look for in the future.
* Jackson claimed South Carolina as his home state, but there is some dispute as to whether he was born in North Carolina or South Carolina. Ironically, South Carolina caused a lot of controversy during Jackson’s administration. There was lots of talk of nullification and even a vote approving it once, but Jackson managed to keep the Union together while he was in office.
* He changed the address in diplomatic correspondence – in the past, official correspondence from foreign countries was addressed to ” the President and Congress of the United States;” Jackson said all correspondence should be addressed to “the President of the United States of America.”
* Jackson was the first President to use the veto liberally and as a political weapon.
* The first assassination attempt against a President occurred when Robert B. Randolph tried to kill Jackson.
* Congress censured Andrew Jackson in 1834 for the removal of funds from the Second Bank of America.
* Jackson was responsible for the displacement of many Indians – he disregarded earlier treaties.
* Jackson’s wife, Rachel, was still married to her first husband when she married Jackson.
* Since Andrew and Rachel couldn’t have any children, they adopted one of Rachel’s brother’s twins.
American Lion is a fascinating book – I would say the readability falls between a textbook and a novel. I found myself taking notes, because this book is not a light read, but it is well worth the time it takes to read it. Don’t let the size intimidate you – there are over 100 pages of notes, etc in the back. One thing did disappoint me, though. I thought our forefathers were more honorable than people are today and I was sorry to discover they weren’t. Jackson’s term was marred by a sex scandal, the Presidential elections went on for too long, and there was plenty of political underhandedness going on. It just goes to show you – the more things change, the more they stay the same. History buffs are sure to love this thoroughly researched, well-written book.
The account spends an inordinate amount of time examining the squabble among the women in Washington concerning the wife of his secretary of the army - the so-called Petticoat Affair. It spends a lot of time on Jackson's campaign to defeat the Bank of the US in its bid for re-certification without adequately explaining why he was opposed to its existence. Also highlighted here is the nullification issue - a big piece in the states' rights argument that led to the civil war. In fact, during Jackson's administration in the 1830's, many in the country believed that civil war was imminent. One of Jackson's accomplishments in office was to neutralize some of the hostilities, postponing the war for more than 20 years.
Like anyone else, Jackson was neither all good nor all bad. He was a slave owner who never freed any of his slaves. He was also behind the forced removal of the Indian nations from the southern states, the "Trail of Tears". Yet, he honestly believed he had the best interests of the union at heart. He saw himself as a father figure to the common people of America.
Biographies are not my favorite reading. I generally find them tedious. This one was no exception. I feel better acquainted with President Andrew Jackson than before, but don't have a full appreciation for the man and his personal and military accomplishments outside of Washington. Nor do I feel like I have a better understanding of most of the issues facing the nation during that time. Of course considering that the subtitle is "Andrew Jackson in the White House", I guess those points are beyond the scope of this book.
Jackson lost his parents at a very young age, consequently he had a very powerful need to be surrounded by his family. When his beloved wife Rachel died a few weeks before he assumed the power of the presidency that role was filled by his young niece Emily and her husband Andrew Jackson Donelson. Unfortunately this arrangement was seriously disturbed on their arrival when one of the president's most trusted advisers, John Eaton, married Peggy O'Neill, who was considered less than acceptable by Washington society. The brouhaha that ensued changed history and may have even been a factor in bringing about the American Civil War.
Once they get rid of Mrs. Eaton things get calmer on the home front while the political situation heats up considerably. Besides destroying the Cherokee Nation's dream to live alongside the white man, Jackson had Calhoun and the Nullifiers to outwit, the bank of the United States to destroy, a nasty confrontation with the French to get past, not to mention giving moral support to the effort to declare Texan independence. He did it by using the presidency in a manner that concentrated power in a way that had never been dared before. He showed how much personality defines a presidency and, for better or worse, changed the nature of the office forever. It went from an office that served at the sufferance of Congress, to one that drives the agenda of government.
This book, more than any other I've read about the time, explores the human side of Jackson's administration and shows how personality and seemingly innocuous events can shape history. | 6,461 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Paper is one of the most used items in society. It has its origins in China, where paper has been in use for almost 2,000 years. In the 8th century, the art of making paper spread from China to the Middle East and later into Europe.
The earliest examples of paper can be seen during the Western Han Dynasty (206 B.C. to A.D. 23) when people used linen to make paper. It was a labor-intensive and costly process. It was during the Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220) that a faster method of producing paper evolved. The person who is credited with inventing the process, Cai Lun, is said to have been an official at Emperor Hedi’s court.
Instead of linen, Cai Lun used plant fibers sourced from rope, cotton rags, bamboo, etc., to create paper. This cut down the production process by many months. The fibers would be mixed with water and wood ashes and boiled for about five weeks. “After the mixture had sufficiently boiled, a gluing agent, such as the juice from boiled birch leaves, was added. This ‘glue’ helped hold the plant fibers together and helped make a smoother, softer, and more pliable paper. The plant pulp, cleaned with water and strained, was spread into sheets to dry,” according to Learn Chinese History.
In the early centuries, rattan plants were favored for making paper. However, since they were slow-growing plants, it was impossible to keep up with the growing demand for paper over time. As such, the Chinese switched to fast-growing bamboo for manufacturing paper by the 8th century. During the Song Dynasty (960-1279), bark from the mulberry tree was used for making paper. The spread of paper revolutionized Chinese society, triggering a rise in literature and art.
“The invention of block printing further raised the demand for paper, especially from Buddhist monasteries. “Paper was so highly valued in ancient China that it was used to pay tribute and taxes to the state during the Tang Dynasty (618-907). The Tang also imposed a colour code on the use of paper, with white paper being reserved for legal documents, yellow for government purposes, and blue for communications with Taoist temples,” according to Ancient History.
Chinese were also the first people to start using paper money. The first known form of money in China is copper coins dating back to the 11th century BC. These copper coins had holes in the middle so that they could be strung together and carried easily. But over time, carrying so many coins became a cumbersome affair.
“During the Tang Dynasty (618–907)… merchants began to leave those heavy strings of coins with a trustworthy agent, who would record how much money the merchant had on deposit on a piece of paper. The paper, a sort of promissory note, could then be traded for goods, and the seller could go to the agent and redeem the note for the strings of coins,” according to Thought Co.
However, it was about three centuries later during the Song Dynasty (960-1279) that actual paper money started making an appearance. In the 1100s, the government issued the world’s first state-backed paper currency. It was called “jiaozi.” | <urn:uuid:23a6ae20-d2af-4314-99bf-01c923dd845e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.visiontimes.com/2020/01/06/chinese-tradition-the-art-of-papermaking.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00201.warc.gz | en | 0.980757 | 694 | 3.828125 | 4 | [
-0.7402870655059814,
-0.004732195753604174,
-0.059613682329654694,
-0.25962209701538086,
0.2285742461681366,
0.17627662420272827,
-0.22374825179576874,
0.0677986592054367,
0.08510517328977585,
0.17411313951015472,
0.4734899401664734,
0.17321881651878357,
0.00936167687177658,
0.003519108751... | 6 | Paper is one of the most used items in society. It has its origins in China, where paper has been in use for almost 2,000 years. In the 8th century, the art of making paper spread from China to the Middle East and later into Europe.
The earliest examples of paper can be seen during the Western Han Dynasty (206 B.C. to A.D. 23) when people used linen to make paper. It was a labor-intensive and costly process. It was during the Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220) that a faster method of producing paper evolved. The person who is credited with inventing the process, Cai Lun, is said to have been an official at Emperor Hedi’s court.
Instead of linen, Cai Lun used plant fibers sourced from rope, cotton rags, bamboo, etc., to create paper. This cut down the production process by many months. The fibers would be mixed with water and wood ashes and boiled for about five weeks. “After the mixture had sufficiently boiled, a gluing agent, such as the juice from boiled birch leaves, was added. This ‘glue’ helped hold the plant fibers together and helped make a smoother, softer, and more pliable paper. The plant pulp, cleaned with water and strained, was spread into sheets to dry,” according to Learn Chinese History.
In the early centuries, rattan plants were favored for making paper. However, since they were slow-growing plants, it was impossible to keep up with the growing demand for paper over time. As such, the Chinese switched to fast-growing bamboo for manufacturing paper by the 8th century. During the Song Dynasty (960-1279), bark from the mulberry tree was used for making paper. The spread of paper revolutionized Chinese society, triggering a rise in literature and art.
“The invention of block printing further raised the demand for paper, especially from Buddhist monasteries. “Paper was so highly valued in ancient China that it was used to pay tribute and taxes to the state during the Tang Dynasty (618-907). The Tang also imposed a colour code on the use of paper, with white paper being reserved for legal documents, yellow for government purposes, and blue for communications with Taoist temples,” according to Ancient History.
Chinese were also the first people to start using paper money. The first known form of money in China is copper coins dating back to the 11th century BC. These copper coins had holes in the middle so that they could be strung together and carried easily. But over time, carrying so many coins became a cumbersome affair.
“During the Tang Dynasty (618–907)… merchants began to leave those heavy strings of coins with a trustworthy agent, who would record how much money the merchant had on deposit on a piece of paper. The paper, a sort of promissory note, could then be traded for goods, and the seller could go to the agent and redeem the note for the strings of coins,” according to Thought Co.
However, it was about three centuries later during the Song Dynasty (960-1279) that actual paper money started making an appearance. In the 1100s, the government issued the world’s first state-backed paper currency. It was called “jiaozi.” | 692 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Glenn Bowers ancestors came from England, Germany, and Scotland. They included farmers, sailors, teachers, merchants, ministers, poets and politicians. Many of them fought and died in wars. The varied themes of each chapter are common to previous generations of many American families. The storylines include the following persons: Wilhelm Bar (William Bower) came to America in 1833 with his five brothers because his parents were concerned about militarism in their native Wrrtemberg. He joined the 29th Ohio in the Civil War, as did 3 brothers, and he died in prison after being captured in their second battle. Margaret Polk Colburn was the first woman physician in Henry County, Indiana. Her husband had served with her father in Accomac, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War. Her ancestors included members of three notable Scottish clans: Maxwells, Polloks and Sempills; and her distant cousins included Confederate General and Episcopal Bishop Leonidas Polk and President James K. Polk. Margarets son, John R. Colburn, was born in North Carolina and became an abolitionist preacher in Missouri during the Civil War. His son served as an armed guard at the services. Ten year old Georg Trimmers mother and 159 other passengers on the Davy, as well as the captain and both mates, died during the 1738 voyage from Amsterdam to Philadelphia. Georg and his father Hans were among the 121 surviving passengers brought into port by the ships carpenter who had become the senior officer. Charles Wright wrote a book about the service of his regiment, the 81st Ohio, during the Civil War; he later served many years as town clerk for Oxford, Ohio, and briefly as mayor. General Israel Putnam was famous for his leadership and bravery during the French and Indian War as well as the Revolutionary War. In 1767 a pregnant Irish girl named Katie was waiting for Israel with her wedding dress when she heard of his marriage to a wealthy widow; she raised their son John in western Massachusetts. An older sister and brother of Samuel Jones were taken from their farm by Wyandot Indians in 1777; they survived separately for many years in captivity, and were both ultimately reunited with their family. Stephen Hopkins survived the 1609 shipwreck of the Sea Venture on its way to Jamestown, and then brought his family to America in 1620 on the Mayflower. The Royalls were watermen in Norfolk, England. Edmund was crushed to death between a boat and the dock in the late 1800s; several of his children emigrated to Canada and then Washington, D.C. Amos Bassett was 13 when the Civil War started; 2 of his 3 brothers who were old enough to serve died soon after they enlisted. One of his wife Matildas brothers lost his left leg in the war 8 days before it ended, and 6 days after he turned 21. Amoss first Bassett ancestor in America arrived in 1621 on the Fortune, the second ship to land at the Plymouth Colony.
From its earliest appearance in the 1890s, the newspaper comic strip has told the story of America, from the Irish ghetto of the Yellow Kid to flappers, war heroes, hippies, and today's office drones and soccer moms. American Newspaper Comics is the first comprehensive, authoritative reference work to document this fascinating history, listing over 7,000 different comic strip and cartoon features from American newspapers. While previous books have typically concentrated on the most popular comic strips and panel cartoon series, American Newspaper Comics is designed to be all-inclusive, providing detailed information on important but previously overlooked artists and features. The result of more than twenty years of meticulous research, American Newspaper Comics provides the most complete picture to date of the evolution of newspaper cartoon features and corrects misinformation that has circulated for years in other references. American Newspaper Comics offers a wealth of information, including the start and end dates of features, their format, frequency, creators, and distribution companies. The book also includes handy cross-indexes and a guide to book-length compilations of newspaper cartoons and comics. In addition, the book includes a CD with samples of more than 2,000 cartoon features, including some that may be new to even the most ardent fan or collector.
While many fans remember The Lone Ranger, Ace Drummond and others, fewer focus on the facts that serials had their roots in silent film and that many foreign studios also produced serials, though few made it to the United States. The 471 serials and 100 series (continuing productions without the cliffhanger endings) from the United States and 136 serials and 37 series from other countries are included in this comprehensive reference work. Each entry includes title, country of origin, year, studio, number of episodes, running time or number of reels, episode titles, cast, production credits, and a plot synopsis. | <urn:uuid:4125b40e-ea88-411e-9972-147b13cdc73b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://pockettorch.net/book/star-hawks-vol-1-1977-1978/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00429.warc.gz | en | 0.984451 | 980 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.13594381511211395,
0.2658613920211792,
0.1697036623954773,
-0.07098262012004852,
-0.1969292163848877,
-0.36335402727127075,
-0.16443903744220734,
-0.35967010259628296,
-0.2848631739616394,
-0.4045119285583496,
0.06603605300188065,
-0.1096024140715599,
0.1047135442495346,
-0.011088199913... | 1 | Glenn Bowers ancestors came from England, Germany, and Scotland. They included farmers, sailors, teachers, merchants, ministers, poets and politicians. Many of them fought and died in wars. The varied themes of each chapter are common to previous generations of many American families. The storylines include the following persons: Wilhelm Bar (William Bower) came to America in 1833 with his five brothers because his parents were concerned about militarism in their native Wrrtemberg. He joined the 29th Ohio in the Civil War, as did 3 brothers, and he died in prison after being captured in their second battle. Margaret Polk Colburn was the first woman physician in Henry County, Indiana. Her husband had served with her father in Accomac, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War. Her ancestors included members of three notable Scottish clans: Maxwells, Polloks and Sempills; and her distant cousins included Confederate General and Episcopal Bishop Leonidas Polk and President James K. Polk. Margarets son, John R. Colburn, was born in North Carolina and became an abolitionist preacher in Missouri during the Civil War. His son served as an armed guard at the services. Ten year old Georg Trimmers mother and 159 other passengers on the Davy, as well as the captain and both mates, died during the 1738 voyage from Amsterdam to Philadelphia. Georg and his father Hans were among the 121 surviving passengers brought into port by the ships carpenter who had become the senior officer. Charles Wright wrote a book about the service of his regiment, the 81st Ohio, during the Civil War; he later served many years as town clerk for Oxford, Ohio, and briefly as mayor. General Israel Putnam was famous for his leadership and bravery during the French and Indian War as well as the Revolutionary War. In 1767 a pregnant Irish girl named Katie was waiting for Israel with her wedding dress when she heard of his marriage to a wealthy widow; she raised their son John in western Massachusetts. An older sister and brother of Samuel Jones were taken from their farm by Wyandot Indians in 1777; they survived separately for many years in captivity, and were both ultimately reunited with their family. Stephen Hopkins survived the 1609 shipwreck of the Sea Venture on its way to Jamestown, and then brought his family to America in 1620 on the Mayflower. The Royalls were watermen in Norfolk, England. Edmund was crushed to death between a boat and the dock in the late 1800s; several of his children emigrated to Canada and then Washington, D.C. Amos Bassett was 13 when the Civil War started; 2 of his 3 brothers who were old enough to serve died soon after they enlisted. One of his wife Matildas brothers lost his left leg in the war 8 days before it ended, and 6 days after he turned 21. Amoss first Bassett ancestor in America arrived in 1621 on the Fortune, the second ship to land at the Plymouth Colony.
From its earliest appearance in the 1890s, the newspaper comic strip has told the story of America, from the Irish ghetto of the Yellow Kid to flappers, war heroes, hippies, and today's office drones and soccer moms. American Newspaper Comics is the first comprehensive, authoritative reference work to document this fascinating history, listing over 7,000 different comic strip and cartoon features from American newspapers. While previous books have typically concentrated on the most popular comic strips and panel cartoon series, American Newspaper Comics is designed to be all-inclusive, providing detailed information on important but previously overlooked artists and features. The result of more than twenty years of meticulous research, American Newspaper Comics provides the most complete picture to date of the evolution of newspaper cartoon features and corrects misinformation that has circulated for years in other references. American Newspaper Comics offers a wealth of information, including the start and end dates of features, their format, frequency, creators, and distribution companies. The book also includes handy cross-indexes and a guide to book-length compilations of newspaper cartoons and comics. In addition, the book includes a CD with samples of more than 2,000 cartoon features, including some that may be new to even the most ardent fan or collector.
While many fans remember The Lone Ranger, Ace Drummond and others, fewer focus on the facts that serials had their roots in silent film and that many foreign studios also produced serials, though few made it to the United States. The 471 serials and 100 series (continuing productions without the cliffhanger endings) from the United States and 136 serials and 37 series from other countries are included in this comprehensive reference work. Each entry includes title, country of origin, year, studio, number of episodes, running time or number of reels, episode titles, cast, production credits, and a plot synopsis. | 1,043 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Baltimore Riots of 1968 marked a violent climax of Baltimore’s racial and economic tensions, and it was the result of numerous social factors of the time. These social factors included declining manufacturing and industry sectors, increasing economic distress and poverty among the city’s growing African American community, and, perhaps most infamously, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Like in nearly every major city in the U.S., King’s assassination was the spark that ignited this riot, which between April 6th and April 14th, resulted in six deaths, 700 injuries, and $8-10 million in property damage around the city.
For those two weeks in April, beginning within hours of the tragic assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., the entire city of Baltimore was devastated by a series of civil uprisings and riots, culminating in the deployment of over 10,000 armed National Guard troops as well as Federal troops under orders from President Lyndon B. Johnson.
It is important to note that the 1968 riots were not solely caused by King’s assassination, but instead by decades of growing tension that culminated in the riot. Martin Luther King Jr. had been coming to Baltimore for speaking events and civil rights activism since 1953; at the same time, downtown Baltimore had seen a surge in African American population growth, and the city had sub-par housing, high infant mortality, and crime, complicated further by an unemployment rate among the African American population that was double the national rate.
Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968, and across the nation, unrest was building in major cities. The Maryland National Guard was called up in anticipation of unrest in Baltimore. The evening of the 4th and April 5th, however, were quiet and calm in Baltimore. Around noon on April 6th, a peaceful gathering formed for a memorial service to King. Around 5 pm of that day, violence started breaking out on the 400 block of Gay Street, where shop windows were being smashed.
The riot started gaining force with looting, fires, and property damage that evening at Gay and Monument streets; a curfew was set, all off-duty police officers were called to duty, and Maryland Gov. Spiro Agnew declared a state of emergency in Baltimore. Nearly the entire Maryland National Guard, both Army and Air, were called up as well, and by April 7th, with the National Guard unable to deal with the unrest, Federal troops were then called in to help. “Task Force Baltimore” peaked with 11,570 Army and National Guard troops by April 9th. The riots continued and on April 12th, some federal troops began moving out of Baltimore following General Robert H. York’s declaration that order had been restored to the city.
Insurers estimated that Baltimore suffered losses at $8-10 million. Around 288 liquor-related establishments were burned or looted; 190 food stores were vandalized; 1,200 fires were lit; 5,700 people were arrested, and six individuals died in the riots (three to fire, one in an auto accident, and two of gunshot wounds).1 | <urn:uuid:831268ed-1a81-455a-b2ed-61830877c6af> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theclio.com/entry/22114 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00372.warc.gz | en | 0.985743 | 635 | 3.828125 | 4 | [
-0.4254332184791565,
0.39079466462135315,
0.31909191608428955,
-0.20757712423801422,
0.17649507522583008,
0.6450362205505371,
0.2381088137626648,
-0.15224000811576843,
-0.13290125131607056,
0.0249922014772892,
0.19064247608184814,
0.4542771875858307,
-0.09985437989234924,
-0.16865622997283... | 2 | The Baltimore Riots of 1968 marked a violent climax of Baltimore’s racial and economic tensions, and it was the result of numerous social factors of the time. These social factors included declining manufacturing and industry sectors, increasing economic distress and poverty among the city’s growing African American community, and, perhaps most infamously, the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Like in nearly every major city in the U.S., King’s assassination was the spark that ignited this riot, which between April 6th and April 14th, resulted in six deaths, 700 injuries, and $8-10 million in property damage around the city.
For those two weeks in April, beginning within hours of the tragic assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., the entire city of Baltimore was devastated by a series of civil uprisings and riots, culminating in the deployment of over 10,000 armed National Guard troops as well as Federal troops under orders from President Lyndon B. Johnson.
It is important to note that the 1968 riots were not solely caused by King’s assassination, but instead by decades of growing tension that culminated in the riot. Martin Luther King Jr. had been coming to Baltimore for speaking events and civil rights activism since 1953; at the same time, downtown Baltimore had seen a surge in African American population growth, and the city had sub-par housing, high infant mortality, and crime, complicated further by an unemployment rate among the African American population that was double the national rate.
Martin Luther King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968, and across the nation, unrest was building in major cities. The Maryland National Guard was called up in anticipation of unrest in Baltimore. The evening of the 4th and April 5th, however, were quiet and calm in Baltimore. Around noon on April 6th, a peaceful gathering formed for a memorial service to King. Around 5 pm of that day, violence started breaking out on the 400 block of Gay Street, where shop windows were being smashed.
The riot started gaining force with looting, fires, and property damage that evening at Gay and Monument streets; a curfew was set, all off-duty police officers were called to duty, and Maryland Gov. Spiro Agnew declared a state of emergency in Baltimore. Nearly the entire Maryland National Guard, both Army and Air, were called up as well, and by April 7th, with the National Guard unable to deal with the unrest, Federal troops were then called in to help. “Task Force Baltimore” peaked with 11,570 Army and National Guard troops by April 9th. The riots continued and on April 12th, some federal troops began moving out of Baltimore following General Robert H. York’s declaration that order had been restored to the city.
Insurers estimated that Baltimore suffered losses at $8-10 million. Around 288 liquor-related establishments were burned or looted; 190 food stores were vandalized; 1,200 fires were lit; 5,700 people were arrested, and six individuals died in the riots (three to fire, one in an auto accident, and two of gunshot wounds).1 | 677 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Two Faces Of Ancient Greece
The two most dominating city-states in Greece of their time, Athens and Sparta, were great rivals with two very different ways of life. Sparta’s overbearing military and Athens’ impartial justice system and government are models for many modern day countries. Even though these two city-states differ greatly from one another, they share many characteristics of their country and their time period. Athens and Sparta were the two most powerful Greek territories of their time. Like most cities of the same country, they have the same Greek culture, worshipping the same Greek gods and speaking Greek.
Need Help with Your Essay?
Leave your essay topic in comments and get a free help
Like all Greeks, their people loved to talk and tell stories. Although they fought against each other, their citizens equally had great amounts of pride for their entire country as well as their city-states. The two rivals were both devoted mainly to agriculture and based their wealth, but not their success, on agriculture. Both also participated in the annual Olympics, an ancient Greek national athletic competition which is now a worldwide tradition. These to Greek city-states were the most feared city-states in all of Greece.
Though Athens and Sparta were similar, they were also very different. Athens was the first democracy, and it was also the first to govern with trial by jury. Athens’ main accomplishment was that it had a very strong Navy. It was the command of the sea and the head of the Naval Alliance, or the Delian League. Athens was the most feared city-state to fight at sea. Its other achievements were that is had excellent forms of art, architecture, drama and literature, philosophy, science, and medicine.
It was very wealthy and had beautiful, extravagant temples. The boys of Athens went to school between the ages of five and eighteen, where they learned reading, writing, mathematics, music, poetry, sports and gymnastics. The girls stayed at home and learned spinning, weaving and domestic arts. Athens had well educated men, a good sense of art, and an all-powerful navy. Sparta developed the most powerful military oligarchy of their time. They had a very strong army and were the most feared city-state to fight on land.
Sparta was a member of the Peloponnesian League and was the most powerful people in it. Its excellent military conquered many territories, which they controlled with slaves. Sparta’s sole achievement, other than military supremacy, was that its people possessed a simple life style, with no care for the arts of Athens. When Spartan boys turned seven years old they began training for the military, and they ceased their training at the age of twenty.
There was much more gender equality in Sparta than in Athens, and girls went to school where they learned reading, writing, athletics, gymnastics, and survival skills, and they could even join the military. Sparta was militarily supreme over Athens, and it also supported better equality and simplicity of life. Sparta and Athens contrasted greatly in military, art, education, government, and in many other areas. The few similarities they had were mainly based on their country’s rituals and traditions. These rituals and traditions are what the modern world remembers of the Greek culture. | <urn:uuid:5d34cc4f-3da1-438c-8d5d-5b2b097331ee> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://benjaminbarber.org/the-two-faces-of-ancient-greece/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00488.warc.gz | en | 0.990265 | 676 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.13463060557842255,
0.32110127806663513,
0.3184938132762909,
-0.5285639762878418,
-0.461504191160202,
-0.41565585136413574,
-0.021901877596974373,
0.4191988706588745,
-0.12087245285511017,
-0.14404892921447754,
-0.5862694382667542,
-0.10446470230817795,
-0.02625102736055851,
0.3084492981... | 1 | The Two Faces Of Ancient Greece
The two most dominating city-states in Greece of their time, Athens and Sparta, were great rivals with two very different ways of life. Sparta’s overbearing military and Athens’ impartial justice system and government are models for many modern day countries. Even though these two city-states differ greatly from one another, they share many characteristics of their country and their time period. Athens and Sparta were the two most powerful Greek territories of their time. Like most cities of the same country, they have the same Greek culture, worshipping the same Greek gods and speaking Greek.
Need Help with Your Essay?
Leave your essay topic in comments and get a free help
Like all Greeks, their people loved to talk and tell stories. Although they fought against each other, their citizens equally had great amounts of pride for their entire country as well as their city-states. The two rivals were both devoted mainly to agriculture and based their wealth, but not their success, on agriculture. Both also participated in the annual Olympics, an ancient Greek national athletic competition which is now a worldwide tradition. These to Greek city-states were the most feared city-states in all of Greece.
Though Athens and Sparta were similar, they were also very different. Athens was the first democracy, and it was also the first to govern with trial by jury. Athens’ main accomplishment was that it had a very strong Navy. It was the command of the sea and the head of the Naval Alliance, or the Delian League. Athens was the most feared city-state to fight at sea. Its other achievements were that is had excellent forms of art, architecture, drama and literature, philosophy, science, and medicine.
It was very wealthy and had beautiful, extravagant temples. The boys of Athens went to school between the ages of five and eighteen, where they learned reading, writing, mathematics, music, poetry, sports and gymnastics. The girls stayed at home and learned spinning, weaving and domestic arts. Athens had well educated men, a good sense of art, and an all-powerful navy. Sparta developed the most powerful military oligarchy of their time. They had a very strong army and were the most feared city-state to fight on land.
Sparta was a member of the Peloponnesian League and was the most powerful people in it. Its excellent military conquered many territories, which they controlled with slaves. Sparta’s sole achievement, other than military supremacy, was that its people possessed a simple life style, with no care for the arts of Athens. When Spartan boys turned seven years old they began training for the military, and they ceased their training at the age of twenty.
There was much more gender equality in Sparta than in Athens, and girls went to school where they learned reading, writing, athletics, gymnastics, and survival skills, and they could even join the military. Sparta was militarily supreme over Athens, and it also supported better equality and simplicity of life. Sparta and Athens contrasted greatly in military, art, education, government, and in many other areas. The few similarities they had were mainly based on their country’s rituals and traditions. These rituals and traditions are what the modern world remembers of the Greek culture. | 655 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Great Pyramids
Throughout the thousands of years that the Great Pyramid has been standing, there have been many myths and legends that sprung up. Among them was a landing site for alien spacecraft, a spacecraft itself, or the means to predict the future. This report is going to explain the actual reason the Great Pyramid of Giza exists, how and why it has existed for so long, and the story of its construction.
The builder of the Great Pyramid does not get enough credit for his unbelievable achievement. Khufu (Also known as Cheops) was pharaoh for 24 years, 20 of which were occupied by the construction of the pyramid. The Greeks of the period called him Cheops but his original Egyptian name was Khufu.
Despite building the largest structure in the world at the time, only a nine-centimeter statue depicting him has been discovered. It seems odd that nothing more of such a great ruler would show up.
Another oddity is that there was absolutely nothing found within the pyramid, except the coffer. No organs, no treasure, no body. Nothing. You could argue that robbers came and stole the treasure, but why take the body or the organs? Also the coffer is too big to fit through the passage ascending to the King's Chamber, which means that the coffer was placed in the Chamber while the roof was still unfinished, contrary to traditional Egyptian burials. Normally, they would carry the coffer containing the pharaoh's corpse up through the ascending passage to his final resting place. This tells us that the Great Pyramid of Giza was probably not intended as a tomb. What was it for then? Lets see if we can find out.
It's 756 feet long on each side, 450 high and is composed of 2,300,000 blocks of stone, each averaging 2 1/2 tons in weight. Despite the makers' limited surveying tools no side is more than 8 inches different in length than another, and the whole structure is perfectly oriented to the points of the compass. Until the 19th century it was the tallest building in the world and, at the age of 4,500 years, it is the only one of the famous "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" that still stands. It is the Great Pyramid of Khufu, at Giza, Egypt.
Some of the earliest history of the Pyramid comes from a Greek traveler named Herodotus of Halicanassus. He visited Egypt around 450 BC and included a description of the Great Pyramid in a history book he wrote. Herodotus was told by his Egyptian guides that it took twenty-years for a force of 100,000 oppressed slaves to build the pyramid. Stones were lifted into position by the use of immense machines. The purpose of the structure, according to Herodotus's sources, was as a tomb for the Pharaoh Khufu (whom the Greeks referred to as Cheops).
Most of what Herodotus tells us is probably false. Scientists calculate that fewer men and fewer years were needed than Herodotus suggests. It also seems unlikely that slaves or complicated machines were needed for the pyramid... | <urn:uuid:bb35ac66-4662-4279-9da0-a2b5ec9ea877> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/the-great-pyramids-1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00064.warc.gz | en | 0.983354 | 639 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.0944233238697052,
0.5522410869598389,
0.5382319688796997,
0.4438731074333191,
-0.5611260533332825,
-0.3719005584716797,
0.34196603298187256,
-0.06670233607292175,
-0.0007910165004432201,
-0.05739379674196243,
0.14811933040618896,
-0.18290238082408905,
-0.005770600866526365,
0.2288778573... | 1 | The Great Pyramids
Throughout the thousands of years that the Great Pyramid has been standing, there have been many myths and legends that sprung up. Among them was a landing site for alien spacecraft, a spacecraft itself, or the means to predict the future. This report is going to explain the actual reason the Great Pyramid of Giza exists, how and why it has existed for so long, and the story of its construction.
The builder of the Great Pyramid does not get enough credit for his unbelievable achievement. Khufu (Also known as Cheops) was pharaoh for 24 years, 20 of which were occupied by the construction of the pyramid. The Greeks of the period called him Cheops but his original Egyptian name was Khufu.
Despite building the largest structure in the world at the time, only a nine-centimeter statue depicting him has been discovered. It seems odd that nothing more of such a great ruler would show up.
Another oddity is that there was absolutely nothing found within the pyramid, except the coffer. No organs, no treasure, no body. Nothing. You could argue that robbers came and stole the treasure, but why take the body or the organs? Also the coffer is too big to fit through the passage ascending to the King's Chamber, which means that the coffer was placed in the Chamber while the roof was still unfinished, contrary to traditional Egyptian burials. Normally, they would carry the coffer containing the pharaoh's corpse up through the ascending passage to his final resting place. This tells us that the Great Pyramid of Giza was probably not intended as a tomb. What was it for then? Lets see if we can find out.
It's 756 feet long on each side, 450 high and is composed of 2,300,000 blocks of stone, each averaging 2 1/2 tons in weight. Despite the makers' limited surveying tools no side is more than 8 inches different in length than another, and the whole structure is perfectly oriented to the points of the compass. Until the 19th century it was the tallest building in the world and, at the age of 4,500 years, it is the only one of the famous "Seven Wonders of the Ancient World" that still stands. It is the Great Pyramid of Khufu, at Giza, Egypt.
Some of the earliest history of the Pyramid comes from a Greek traveler named Herodotus of Halicanassus. He visited Egypt around 450 BC and included a description of the Great Pyramid in a history book he wrote. Herodotus was told by his Egyptian guides that it took twenty-years for a force of 100,000 oppressed slaves to build the pyramid. Stones were lifted into position by the use of immense machines. The purpose of the structure, according to Herodotus's sources, was as a tomb for the Pharaoh Khufu (whom the Greeks referred to as Cheops).
Most of what Herodotus tells us is probably false. Scientists calculate that fewer men and fewer years were needed than Herodotus suggests. It also seems unlikely that slaves or complicated machines were needed for the pyramid... | 669 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Prejudice is a negative aspect of society that has unfavorable affected many different people. In the novel, racial prejudice is evident but there are more types of prejudice on the novel. We said that racial prejudice Is evident because in the novel a black man (Tom Robinson) was caused from raping a woman named Male Lowell and therefore had to go to trial.
There were many points of view with regard to the case of Tom Robinson, but of course all influenced by prejudice because the color of Tom. The people of Macomb town thought that Tom was guilty. Tactics and children (Scout, Gem, and Dill) thought that he was innocent. When we read this we can see that the prejudice is an important theme in the novel. For this reason it is necessary to make an analysis of this topic.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
People of Macomb town always knew what the verdict of the trial was going to be (the Judicial system was full of prejudice), even though some of them deep down knew that Tom was Innocent, he don’t rape Male. . Macomb, like most small southern towns, has a problem with widespread racism (type of prejudice) toward African American people. As Macomb was a small town with little or no new students, people living there formed prejudices about various families over the generations.
Social prejudice in Macomb caused families to be stereotyped, which had a negative impact on members of those various families as it caused their character to become ‘fixed’ just by their household name. It also had a negative impact on the individual residents of Macomb, causing them to have unequal treatment. An example of this prejudice is the rejection attitude of the town to Boo Raddled, only because he is a Raddled . Prejudice in To Kill a Mockingbird can be categorized into three forms, social prejudice, racial prejudice and gender prejudice. | <urn:uuid:3dd15667-6867-433e-ac0e-ec2adcf57c34> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://anyassignment.com/sociology/prejudice-on-to-kill-a-mockingbird-assignment-54249/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00204.warc.gz | en | 0.980263 | 392 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
0.2144104689359665,
0.11105193942785263,
-0.1972346007823944,
0.0959593802690506,
0.13909898698329926,
-0.1823204606771469,
0.5707861185073853,
0.13480207324028015,
0.007282279431819916,
-0.1269066333770752,
0.6101205945014954,
-0.2326892614364624,
0.12465301156044006,
-0.00273057818412780... | 3 | Prejudice is a negative aspect of society that has unfavorable affected many different people. In the novel, racial prejudice is evident but there are more types of prejudice on the novel. We said that racial prejudice Is evident because in the novel a black man (Tom Robinson) was caused from raping a woman named Male Lowell and therefore had to go to trial.
There were many points of view with regard to the case of Tom Robinson, but of course all influenced by prejudice because the color of Tom. The people of Macomb town thought that Tom was guilty. Tactics and children (Scout, Gem, and Dill) thought that he was innocent. When we read this we can see that the prejudice is an important theme in the novel. For this reason it is necessary to make an analysis of this topic.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
People of Macomb town always knew what the verdict of the trial was going to be (the Judicial system was full of prejudice), even though some of them deep down knew that Tom was Innocent, he don’t rape Male. . Macomb, like most small southern towns, has a problem with widespread racism (type of prejudice) toward African American people. As Macomb was a small town with little or no new students, people living there formed prejudices about various families over the generations.
Social prejudice in Macomb caused families to be stereotyped, which had a negative impact on members of those various families as it caused their character to become ‘fixed’ just by their household name. It also had a negative impact on the individual residents of Macomb, causing them to have unequal treatment. An example of this prejudice is the rejection attitude of the town to Boo Raddled, only because he is a Raddled . Prejudice in To Kill a Mockingbird can be categorized into three forms, social prejudice, racial prejudice and gender prejudice. | 384 | ENGLISH | 1 |
25th of January 2020
What is Burn’s Night?
Burn’s Night, also known as Burn’s Supper, is a holiday celebrated in Scotland on January 25th in honor of the poet Robert Burns. While this holiday is officially a Scottish holiday, many people all over the world celebrate it by hosting their own versions of Burn’s Supper.
What do we have in store?
The History of Burn’s Night
Robert Burns was a Scottish poet and lyricist which was born on January 25th, 1759 in Ayrshire, Scotland. He was regarded as a pioneer of the Romantic movement. He is not only known for his poetry but is also known for his original compositions. Although he died on July 21st, 1796, he gained enormous popularity in Scotland during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Burn’s Night can be traced all the way back to a supper held by the friends of Robert Burns on July 21st, 1801. They had gathered together on this day because it was the fifth anniversary of his death and they wanted to honor him.
How to celebrate Burn’s Night
One of the traditional ways to celebrate Burn’s Night is with a Burn’s Supper. These dinners can be formal or informal and may include only friends or friends and family. During this supper, ‘Selkirk Grace’ is recited as well as the ‘Address to a Haggis’. Whiskey and food are also main components of this supper. Some of the food which is served includes Cullen Skink, Haggis, neeps and tatties. Desserts often include oatmeal shortbread, whiskey caramels and marinated raspberries. | <urn:uuid:7f121cac-dd9c-4f56-9e47-02eb262d413b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.stonemanor.uk.com/event/burns-night-january-25th-2-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00336.warc.gz | en | 0.990121 | 365 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
0.011891182512044907,
0.3607460856437683,
-0.014630519784986973,
0.14525106549263,
0.16002590954303741,
-0.550305962562561,
0.29862749576568604,
-0.12110967934131622,
-0.08022546023130417,
-0.10856533795595169,
0.3598252236843109,
-0.26040443778038025,
-0.18255898356437683,
0.1297666132450... | 1 | 25th of January 2020
What is Burn’s Night?
Burn’s Night, also known as Burn’s Supper, is a holiday celebrated in Scotland on January 25th in honor of the poet Robert Burns. While this holiday is officially a Scottish holiday, many people all over the world celebrate it by hosting their own versions of Burn’s Supper.
What do we have in store?
The History of Burn’s Night
Robert Burns was a Scottish poet and lyricist which was born on January 25th, 1759 in Ayrshire, Scotland. He was regarded as a pioneer of the Romantic movement. He is not only known for his poetry but is also known for his original compositions. Although he died on July 21st, 1796, he gained enormous popularity in Scotland during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Burn’s Night can be traced all the way back to a supper held by the friends of Robert Burns on July 21st, 1801. They had gathered together on this day because it was the fifth anniversary of his death and they wanted to honor him.
How to celebrate Burn’s Night
One of the traditional ways to celebrate Burn’s Night is with a Burn’s Supper. These dinners can be formal or informal and may include only friends or friends and family. During this supper, ‘Selkirk Grace’ is recited as well as the ‘Address to a Haggis’. Whiskey and food are also main components of this supper. Some of the food which is served includes Cullen Skink, Haggis, neeps and tatties. Desserts often include oatmeal shortbread, whiskey caramels and marinated raspberries. | 363 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Essay on Rosa Parks Essay on Rosa Parks Rosa Louise Parks was an extraordinary African American civil rights activist whose heroic actions sparked the beginning of the monumental civil rights movement within the United States of America. Rosa Parks firmly stood up for what she believed and it was time for her to show the world who she was and what she believed in. Rosa was born on February 4th, in Tuskegee, Alabama. Every since she was a little girl, her mother knew that God had a special purpose for her.
Rosa Parks Throughout the African American civil rights movement opportunities were sought to spark a chance at improving conditions in the south.
Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the Montgomery, Alabama bus was the fire to that spark. While Rosa was in jail she caught the eye of many people in the Civil Rights Movement, including the leaders. The Civil Rights leaders protested her arrest and hired lawyers to aid her in her trial.
Rosa Parks has affected the society we live in today in many ways, she is the most influential person the black community has ever seen. Born in Tuskegee, Alabama on February 4,she was raised in an era during segregation which was normal and that black suppression was a normal way of life.
Her mother worked as a school teacher at the school in Tuskegee. Rosa's father, James McCauley, worked as a carpenter. After her brother, Sylvester, was born, their dad had left them. He was cheated out on his land and couldn't support the family anymore.
Her mom, brother and herself, then moved in with their grandparents. She finished High school inand continued her education at Alabama State College. She married in to a barber named Raymond Parks. She also was employed as a seamstress by a white resident of Montgomery, who was a supporter of black Americans struggle for equal rights and freedom.
The fight by African Americans for equal rights had been going on for years, one day Rosa Parks really got that battle going. Segregation was most visible on the buses in Montgomery. African Americans were told to ride in the back ten rows of the buses.
The first ten rows were for white people and the center ten rows were whatever the bus driver wanted them to be. Many times the African Americans had to enter the front door to pay their toll, exit the front door and go in the back door of the bus.
The bus drivers would often drive away while the African Americans were walking to the back door. Jim Crow laws prevented blacks from receiving the same rights as all other citizens.
On December 1,Rosa Parks was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for not standing and letting a white bus rider take her seat. She was found guilty for disorderly conduct and fined fourteen dollars.
The city law stated that all African Americans were to sit in separate rows on the buses. African Americans had to sit in the back rows of the bus because the front rows of the bus were reserved of the white passengers.Rosa Parks Essay.
Rosa Parks Rosa Parks, born in Tuskegee, Alabama on February 4, in was raised in an era during which segregation was normal and black suppression was a way of life. She lived with relatives in Montgomery, where she finished high school in and continued her education at Alabama State College.
The Essay Judge +17 “Rosa Parks” Essay Review It seems to me that there are at least three important things going on this essay. 1.
You make claims about Rosa Parks as a person: her greatness, her courage and so on. 2. You provide an historical review of the life of Rosa Parks, focusing on events related to the Civil Right’s Movement. 3. However it was Rosa Parks who had become a popular figure, the one who inspired the following actions that are now called the Civil Rights Movement.
Actually, Martin Luther King was a baptist pastor at that time, but after he found out about Rosa’s brave action, he became one of the leaders of Montgomery Bus Boycott. Rosa Parks was born in Tuskegee, Alabama February 4, She was an African American Civil Rights activist.
She was also well known as “the first lady of Civil Rights,” and “mother of the freedom movement” (Rosa parks biography, ). (Parks, Rosa and Steele, Elaine) President Clinton presented Rosa Parks with the Presidental Medal of Freedom in and she also received a Congressional Gold Medal in Parks, Rosa and Steele, Elaine) “The Rosa Parks Story” was filmed in Montgomery, Alabama May , an aired Febuary 24, on the CBS television .
- Rosa Parks The woman who earned the title "Mother of the Civil Rights Movement", Rosa Louise Parks is a n enormous inspiration to the African American race (Girl Power Guests 1).
Rosa was born in Tuskegee, Alabama on February 4, to James and Leona McCauley (The Life of Rosa Parks 1). | <urn:uuid:d4e507c7-1678-43c3-bfdc-09412cdb2865> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://wovavor.ashio-midori.com/essays-about-rosa-parks-26836wl.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00241.warc.gz | en | 0.986881 | 1,019 | 3.90625 | 4 | [
-0.3438231348991394,
0.04052070528268814,
0.2966255843639374,
0.2441396415233612,
-0.021603699773550034,
0.08322513848543167,
0.30358386039733887,
0.04512219503521919,
-0.20752094686031342,
0.0029529398307204247,
0.05224175006151199,
0.3323121666908264,
0.00047844904474914074,
-0.042361259... | 2 | Essay on Rosa Parks Essay on Rosa Parks Rosa Louise Parks was an extraordinary African American civil rights activist whose heroic actions sparked the beginning of the monumental civil rights movement within the United States of America. Rosa Parks firmly stood up for what she believed and it was time for her to show the world who she was and what she believed in. Rosa was born on February 4th, in Tuskegee, Alabama. Every since she was a little girl, her mother knew that God had a special purpose for her.
Rosa Parks Throughout the African American civil rights movement opportunities were sought to spark a chance at improving conditions in the south.
Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the Montgomery, Alabama bus was the fire to that spark. While Rosa was in jail she caught the eye of many people in the Civil Rights Movement, including the leaders. The Civil Rights leaders protested her arrest and hired lawyers to aid her in her trial.
Rosa Parks has affected the society we live in today in many ways, she is the most influential person the black community has ever seen. Born in Tuskegee, Alabama on February 4,she was raised in an era during segregation which was normal and that black suppression was a normal way of life.
Her mother worked as a school teacher at the school in Tuskegee. Rosa's father, James McCauley, worked as a carpenter. After her brother, Sylvester, was born, their dad had left them. He was cheated out on his land and couldn't support the family anymore.
Her mom, brother and herself, then moved in with their grandparents. She finished High school inand continued her education at Alabama State College. She married in to a barber named Raymond Parks. She also was employed as a seamstress by a white resident of Montgomery, who was a supporter of black Americans struggle for equal rights and freedom.
The fight by African Americans for equal rights had been going on for years, one day Rosa Parks really got that battle going. Segregation was most visible on the buses in Montgomery. African Americans were told to ride in the back ten rows of the buses.
The first ten rows were for white people and the center ten rows were whatever the bus driver wanted them to be. Many times the African Americans had to enter the front door to pay their toll, exit the front door and go in the back door of the bus.
The bus drivers would often drive away while the African Americans were walking to the back door. Jim Crow laws prevented blacks from receiving the same rights as all other citizens.
On December 1,Rosa Parks was arrested in Montgomery, Alabama for not standing and letting a white bus rider take her seat. She was found guilty for disorderly conduct and fined fourteen dollars.
The city law stated that all African Americans were to sit in separate rows on the buses. African Americans had to sit in the back rows of the bus because the front rows of the bus were reserved of the white passengers.Rosa Parks Essay.
Rosa Parks Rosa Parks, born in Tuskegee, Alabama on February 4, in was raised in an era during which segregation was normal and black suppression was a way of life. She lived with relatives in Montgomery, where she finished high school in and continued her education at Alabama State College.
The Essay Judge +17 “Rosa Parks” Essay Review It seems to me that there are at least three important things going on this essay. 1.
You make claims about Rosa Parks as a person: her greatness, her courage and so on. 2. You provide an historical review of the life of Rosa Parks, focusing on events related to the Civil Right’s Movement. 3. However it was Rosa Parks who had become a popular figure, the one who inspired the following actions that are now called the Civil Rights Movement.
Actually, Martin Luther King was a baptist pastor at that time, but after he found out about Rosa’s brave action, he became one of the leaders of Montgomery Bus Boycott. Rosa Parks was born in Tuskegee, Alabama February 4, She was an African American Civil Rights activist.
She was also well known as “the first lady of Civil Rights,” and “mother of the freedom movement” (Rosa parks biography, ). (Parks, Rosa and Steele, Elaine) President Clinton presented Rosa Parks with the Presidental Medal of Freedom in and she also received a Congressional Gold Medal in Parks, Rosa and Steele, Elaine) “The Rosa Parks Story” was filmed in Montgomery, Alabama May , an aired Febuary 24, on the CBS television .
- Rosa Parks The woman who earned the title "Mother of the Civil Rights Movement", Rosa Louise Parks is a n enormous inspiration to the African American race (Girl Power Guests 1).
Rosa was born in Tuskegee, Alabama on February 4, to James and Leona McCauley (The Life of Rosa Parks 1). | 997 | ENGLISH | 1 |
It consisted of mainly middle class and liberal links, but also working class members.
Women Who were the muckrakers? Identify some of the major muckrakers and their writings.
How did they prepare the way Essay about womens suffrage Progressivism? The muckrakers were journalists whom detailed the corrupt and scandal occurring in the world. What contribution did the Social Gospel movement make to progressivism?
The Social Gospel movement preached that the life of Jesus must be applied to real life and people must reach salvation through good acts. The settlement house movement was a major organization that organized woman during the Progressive Era. Clubs such as literary clubs also became very popular for women during the early 20th century, where women would meet and read books that spoke about the social, ethical, ad moral issues that plagued America.
What role did Margaret Sanger play in challenging gender restrictions in the early 20c? Margaret Sanger challenged gender restrictions by being open about sexuality and educating women. Sanger also led the birth control movement and helped to set up the first Planned Parenthood clinics in America.
Women were said to have a sphere of working at home and taking care of the family, however, women suffrage campaigners believed women should also have a sphere of influence in the politics and economic part of life. Which position was probably the most influential in finally obtaining the vote for women?
Why was the West different? Upper class women were most influential in obtaining the right for women to vote. The west was different because most women were working and had to work in order to keep their job.
How did progressive reform impact the operation and structure of city government? Before the progressive reform, government was plagued by corruption and scandal. Progressive reforms brought out the corruption and exposed it to the citizens of the United States, which caused them to want to make a change in the ay that the country was run.
What was the basic purpose of the initiative, referendum, direct primary, and recall? The initiative was put in place to have voters propose legislation directly. The purpose of the referendum was to submit a legislative measure to vote by a general public. The purpose of direct was to elect people into office.
Lastly, the purpose of recall was to take measure to take a politician out of office. Who was Robert La Follette? Wisconsin became know as the laboratory of democracy because it had reforms that broke the power of party bosses.
What was the relationship between the weakening of political parties and the rise of interest groups? As the influence of political parties weakened, organized groups could push their special interests without having to go to party leaders.
What were some of the progressive reforms pushed by organized labor? They began to lurk on the background and often began to pretend as if they were actually listening to the voices of the American citizens so that they could get through the dangerous progressive era.
Why was progressivism especially strong in the western states?
Many people that had moved out west were individualists and since the west was still being shaped around this time, they took advantage of that. The people in the west sought to prevent society from being as corrupt as it had been in north eastern states.We will write a custom essay sample on The Women Suffrage Movement ( ) specifically for you.
for only $/page. Womens suffrage movement; We will write a custom essay sample on The Women Suffrage Movement ( ) specifically for . Womens Suffrage Essay created equal yet women are not included and denied that right.
Through out history women have been seen as inferior and of . Essay about The History of the Women’s Suffrage Movement Words 4 Pages Women’s suffrage, or the crusade to achieve the equal right for women to vote and run for political office, was a difficult fight that took activists in the United States almost years to win.
Research within librarian-selected research topics on Women's History from the Questia online library, including full-text online books, academic journals, magazines, newspapers and more.
Jone Johnson Lewis has a Master of Divinity, and is a humanist clergy member and certified transformational coach.
She has been involved in the women's movement since the late s. Updated January 31, The table below shows key events in the struggle for women's suffrage . Women s suffrage dbq essay industrial revolution Sloan sports conference research papers concussions in the nfl research papers is the american dream worth pursuing essay help reflective essay on blood pressure. | <urn:uuid:cc50451c-38cf-427e-a3ff-68e34eb07892> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://tipobybani.timberdesignmag.com/essay-about-womens-suffrage-11122ig.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00423.warc.gz | en | 0.984658 | 917 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.03656446561217308,
-0.025982536375522614,
0.17440518736839294,
-0.02745039574801922,
-0.08066292107105255,
0.5061469078063965,
-0.3706265091896057,
0.2978985905647278,
-0.1521226465702057,
0.26212963461875916,
0.3057628273963928,
0.2811519503593445,
0.06489086896181107,
-0.3373904824256... | 2 | It consisted of mainly middle class and liberal links, but also working class members.
Women Who were the muckrakers? Identify some of the major muckrakers and their writings.
How did they prepare the way Essay about womens suffrage Progressivism? The muckrakers were journalists whom detailed the corrupt and scandal occurring in the world. What contribution did the Social Gospel movement make to progressivism?
The Social Gospel movement preached that the life of Jesus must be applied to real life and people must reach salvation through good acts. The settlement house movement was a major organization that organized woman during the Progressive Era. Clubs such as literary clubs also became very popular for women during the early 20th century, where women would meet and read books that spoke about the social, ethical, ad moral issues that plagued America.
What role did Margaret Sanger play in challenging gender restrictions in the early 20c? Margaret Sanger challenged gender restrictions by being open about sexuality and educating women. Sanger also led the birth control movement and helped to set up the first Planned Parenthood clinics in America.
Women were said to have a sphere of working at home and taking care of the family, however, women suffrage campaigners believed women should also have a sphere of influence in the politics and economic part of life. Which position was probably the most influential in finally obtaining the vote for women?
Why was the West different? Upper class women were most influential in obtaining the right for women to vote. The west was different because most women were working and had to work in order to keep their job.
How did progressive reform impact the operation and structure of city government? Before the progressive reform, government was plagued by corruption and scandal. Progressive reforms brought out the corruption and exposed it to the citizens of the United States, which caused them to want to make a change in the ay that the country was run.
What was the basic purpose of the initiative, referendum, direct primary, and recall? The initiative was put in place to have voters propose legislation directly. The purpose of the referendum was to submit a legislative measure to vote by a general public. The purpose of direct was to elect people into office.
Lastly, the purpose of recall was to take measure to take a politician out of office. Who was Robert La Follette? Wisconsin became know as the laboratory of democracy because it had reforms that broke the power of party bosses.
What was the relationship between the weakening of political parties and the rise of interest groups? As the influence of political parties weakened, organized groups could push their special interests without having to go to party leaders.
What were some of the progressive reforms pushed by organized labor? They began to lurk on the background and often began to pretend as if they were actually listening to the voices of the American citizens so that they could get through the dangerous progressive era.
Why was progressivism especially strong in the western states?
Many people that had moved out west were individualists and since the west was still being shaped around this time, they took advantage of that. The people in the west sought to prevent society from being as corrupt as it had been in north eastern states.We will write a custom essay sample on The Women Suffrage Movement ( ) specifically for you.
for only $/page. Womens suffrage movement; We will write a custom essay sample on The Women Suffrage Movement ( ) specifically for . Womens Suffrage Essay created equal yet women are not included and denied that right.
Through out history women have been seen as inferior and of . Essay about The History of the Women’s Suffrage Movement Words 4 Pages Women’s suffrage, or the crusade to achieve the equal right for women to vote and run for political office, was a difficult fight that took activists in the United States almost years to win.
Research within librarian-selected research topics on Women's History from the Questia online library, including full-text online books, academic journals, magazines, newspapers and more.
Jone Johnson Lewis has a Master of Divinity, and is a humanist clergy member and certified transformational coach.
She has been involved in the women's movement since the late s. Updated January 31, The table below shows key events in the struggle for women's suffrage . Women s suffrage dbq essay industrial revolution Sloan sports conference research papers concussions in the nfl research papers is the american dream worth pursuing essay help reflective essay on blood pressure. | 889 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The few remaining returned home, to Spain. The outcome for England led them to explore overseas. Later, Elizabeth faced two more major problems. One was the religious persecution left behind by her stepsister Mary. The other was a problem dealing with Parliament. The religious problem in England was becoming more and more corrupt. The puritans were not fully satisfied with the changes taking place. They wanted the English Church to be even more purified. The puritans were against Catholism and wanted to abolish it all together. However, Elizabeth as well as any other monarch felt disunity would subject then to harmful situations later on. This led Elizabeth to persecute tine two religions. Elizabeth was strong
On the Anglican Church and because of that it lasted throughout her reign. Elizabeth and Parliament did not have any problems until towards the end. Parliament had always told Elizabeth to marry, and Elizabeth would overlook what they said. Elizabeth managed Parliament very well. However, the puritans became sort of a problem to her. The puritans began to question the government policies. There questions became more numerous and frequent. This led certain members of Parliament to revolt. Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603. After she died England continued to have problems in Parliament. These problems led to the English Revolution. During this period James I was King of England. Meaning that Elizabeth no longer had to be burdened by Englands difficulties.
A minor problem that Elizabeth faced was with her own family, her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. Mary tried to follow through with a plot to kill Elizabeth. However, it was not accomplished. Elizabeth ruled out her reign to the fullest of her capacity. She helped England succeed in many things, all because of her personality and will to want to. Elizabeth was known as the Virgin Queen because she never got married and therefore died unmarried. Elizabeth didn’t marry because of two reasons. First, she was disturbed with the behavior of her father towards his wives, secondly perhaps she could not find her love. The story of why Elizabeth I never got married has yet to be uncovered. | <urn:uuid:23633062-ac18-45e3-82de-e30349e6b2c4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gemmarketingsolutions.com/essay-on-the-biography-of-elizabeth-i-the-reformer-queen/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00438.warc.gz | en | 0.993842 | 419 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
-0.20190975069999695,
0.1626911163330078,
0.3571043610572815,
-0.3370087146759033,
-0.17429974675178528,
0.030323907732963562,
-0.28102827072143555,
-0.03725869208574295,
0.3751443326473236,
0.10879895091056824,
-0.37820684909820557,
-0.29295527935028076,
0.2185596078634262,
-0.02761240862... | 1 | The few remaining returned home, to Spain. The outcome for England led them to explore overseas. Later, Elizabeth faced two more major problems. One was the religious persecution left behind by her stepsister Mary. The other was a problem dealing with Parliament. The religious problem in England was becoming more and more corrupt. The puritans were not fully satisfied with the changes taking place. They wanted the English Church to be even more purified. The puritans were against Catholism and wanted to abolish it all together. However, Elizabeth as well as any other monarch felt disunity would subject then to harmful situations later on. This led Elizabeth to persecute tine two religions. Elizabeth was strong
On the Anglican Church and because of that it lasted throughout her reign. Elizabeth and Parliament did not have any problems until towards the end. Parliament had always told Elizabeth to marry, and Elizabeth would overlook what they said. Elizabeth managed Parliament very well. However, the puritans became sort of a problem to her. The puritans began to question the government policies. There questions became more numerous and frequent. This led certain members of Parliament to revolt. Elizabeth died on March 24, 1603. After she died England continued to have problems in Parliament. These problems led to the English Revolution. During this period James I was King of England. Meaning that Elizabeth no longer had to be burdened by Englands difficulties.
A minor problem that Elizabeth faced was with her own family, her cousin Mary Queen of Scots. Mary tried to follow through with a plot to kill Elizabeth. However, it was not accomplished. Elizabeth ruled out her reign to the fullest of her capacity. She helped England succeed in many things, all because of her personality and will to want to. Elizabeth was known as the Virgin Queen because she never got married and therefore died unmarried. Elizabeth didn’t marry because of two reasons. First, she was disturbed with the behavior of her father towards his wives, secondly perhaps she could not find her love. The story of why Elizabeth I never got married has yet to be uncovered. | 425 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Technological transformations occur daily, affecting many groups of people. Two groups of people that were most affected before 1900 were farmers and physicians. The advancement in technology for both farmers and physicians has made impact for all. The advancements for farmers helped them to cover more land, producing more goods and at the same time lowering the cost to take care of a farm. Physicians were able to expand their knowledge and give better care to those in need. The machines and tools were able to give them a better idea of what was wrong with a patient. There were many inventions that helped in making ...view middle of the document...
These teeth would grab the cotton, pulling it through a tiny hole which the seeds could not fit through. Once this machine was invented the price of cotton dramatically dropped and was no longer more expensive than linen. The cotton gin was able to produce 1,000 pounds of clean cotton in the same amount of time that it would take one man to clean five pounds (Moore, 2008)
One of most beneficial inventions to farmers was the invention of a gasoline tractor. The gasoline tractor was invented by John Froelich in 1892 in Northeast Iowa. John Froelich decided that there had to be a better way than using a steam engine to move large equipment. Steam engines were hard to maneuver and extremely bulky. The steam engine design was also dangerous because of the threat of a fire starting to the fields and destroying all the crops. This new design of a gasoline tractor was a faster and safer way of farming. The invention of the gasoline tractor is one of the many inventions that help farmers increase productivity (Bellis).
The services that physicians provide play an important role in daily occupations. There have been many technological advances in this field that have helped lead the way to medical advancements. Wilhelm Rontgen invented the first X-ray machine in 1895. His invention first pictured a kidney stone and a penny which was stuck in a child’s throat. People were amazed by this new technology, which was aiding physicians to detect problems inside one’s body (Waters, 2011).
The heart is one of the most important organs in the human body. The invention of the stethoscope made it possible to listen to the heart beat to ensure proper function. Physicians used to put their ear up to a person body to listen for a sound, the stethoscope made it easier and clearer to hear the beat of the heart. It was invented at a Paris hospital by a French doctor named Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec in 1816. The first stethoscope was made up of a wooden tube and was monaural. Many changes have been done to the stethoscope but the main principle still remains the same and assist physicians in providing quality care to patients (Weinberg, 1993)
While examining body structures and their functions, another important topic in medicine is being able to view culture samples in extreme detail. It is hard to tell who exactly invented the first microscope however, Hans Jannsen and his son, Zacharius, are credited with inventing the compound microscope. Bichat was a young scientist who wrote a book talking about the various organs in the body and how the microscope was extremely useful for looking at each organ. Once his book was published and the population saw the benefits of the microscope, it was more widely used in laboratories and in medical schools (Hajdu, 2002).
Impact of Technology
Farmers roles have transformed with the advancement in technology over the last couple hundred years. Farmers are now able to raise more cattle, and plant more crops... | <urn:uuid:7fed16ee-7a4c-49e8-88df-323a9ea0a388> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.avroarrow.org/essay/technological-transformations | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00036.warc.gz | en | 0.980502 | 730 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.27494728565216064,
0.13558197021484375,
0.491848349571228,
-0.07494741678237915,
-0.10732565075159073,
-0.17597883939743042,
0.22903591394424438,
0.5495254993438721,
-0.3830961585044861,
0.22163492441177368,
-0.12501512467861176,
0.10378506034612656,
0.008479589596390724,
-0.02939175441... | 1 | Technological transformations occur daily, affecting many groups of people. Two groups of people that were most affected before 1900 were farmers and physicians. The advancement in technology for both farmers and physicians has made impact for all. The advancements for farmers helped them to cover more land, producing more goods and at the same time lowering the cost to take care of a farm. Physicians were able to expand their knowledge and give better care to those in need. The machines and tools were able to give them a better idea of what was wrong with a patient. There were many inventions that helped in making ...view middle of the document...
These teeth would grab the cotton, pulling it through a tiny hole which the seeds could not fit through. Once this machine was invented the price of cotton dramatically dropped and was no longer more expensive than linen. The cotton gin was able to produce 1,000 pounds of clean cotton in the same amount of time that it would take one man to clean five pounds (Moore, 2008)
One of most beneficial inventions to farmers was the invention of a gasoline tractor. The gasoline tractor was invented by John Froelich in 1892 in Northeast Iowa. John Froelich decided that there had to be a better way than using a steam engine to move large equipment. Steam engines were hard to maneuver and extremely bulky. The steam engine design was also dangerous because of the threat of a fire starting to the fields and destroying all the crops. This new design of a gasoline tractor was a faster and safer way of farming. The invention of the gasoline tractor is one of the many inventions that help farmers increase productivity (Bellis).
The services that physicians provide play an important role in daily occupations. There have been many technological advances in this field that have helped lead the way to medical advancements. Wilhelm Rontgen invented the first X-ray machine in 1895. His invention first pictured a kidney stone and a penny which was stuck in a child’s throat. People were amazed by this new technology, which was aiding physicians to detect problems inside one’s body (Waters, 2011).
The heart is one of the most important organs in the human body. The invention of the stethoscope made it possible to listen to the heart beat to ensure proper function. Physicians used to put their ear up to a person body to listen for a sound, the stethoscope made it easier and clearer to hear the beat of the heart. It was invented at a Paris hospital by a French doctor named Rene Theophile Hyacinthe Laennec in 1816. The first stethoscope was made up of a wooden tube and was monaural. Many changes have been done to the stethoscope but the main principle still remains the same and assist physicians in providing quality care to patients (Weinberg, 1993)
While examining body structures and their functions, another important topic in medicine is being able to view culture samples in extreme detail. It is hard to tell who exactly invented the first microscope however, Hans Jannsen and his son, Zacharius, are credited with inventing the compound microscope. Bichat was a young scientist who wrote a book talking about the various organs in the body and how the microscope was extremely useful for looking at each organ. Once his book was published and the population saw the benefits of the microscope, it was more widely used in laboratories and in medical schools (Hajdu, 2002).
Impact of Technology
Farmers roles have transformed with the advancement in technology over the last couple hundred years. Farmers are now able to raise more cattle, and plant more crops... | 750 | ENGLISH | 1 |
American history has not always been a smooth ride, and one of the biggest reasons for this is that the country was founded on a set of ideals that have yet to be fully realized. Most important among them the principle that all men and women are created equal.
The Founders understood that the reality and the ideal were not to be aligned in their lifetime; some of them were happy with this since they owned slaves, but others such as John Adams found it abhorrent.
They foresaw that things would change in the future and perhaps bring about the perfect union they sought; thus they built into the nation's laws the capacity for change. However, reactionary forces have not always welcomed that change, especially when it threatens entrenched interests or asks people to challenge their own prejudices.
The Civil Rights movement was one of the most important movements to bring America's reality and its ideals into greater alignment, by asserting the now hopefully uncontroversial position that skin color is not a reason for denying a person's full participation in their own democracy and its economy.
The fact that this is seen as pretty darn obvious to our generation is owed to the work of heroic leaders like Martin Luther King, John Lewis, Dorothy Height, Rosa Parks, Gloria Richardson, and more. In remembering their deeds, we honor them and carry on their work. So let's get to it! | <urn:uuid:3c88fe5f-79ae-4d2e-a082-40d4aad9b135> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://quizzes.howstuffworks.com/quiz/how-much-do-you-know-the-civil-rights-movement?remorapos=2&rmalg=es&remorasrc=0018c13b-febe-11e6-99d2-080027b55128 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00507.warc.gz | en | 0.984537 | 271 | 4.0625 | 4 | [
-0.35587868094444275,
0.18901458382606506,
0.17871293425559998,
0.08676643669605255,
-0.4706244170665741,
0.5779551863670349,
0.10728821158409119,
-0.12118864804506302,
-0.012051427736878395,
0.11068156361579895,
0.10956920683383942,
0.13214533030986786,
0.027543246746063232,
0.01470146887... | 10 | American history has not always been a smooth ride, and one of the biggest reasons for this is that the country was founded on a set of ideals that have yet to be fully realized. Most important among them the principle that all men and women are created equal.
The Founders understood that the reality and the ideal were not to be aligned in their lifetime; some of them were happy with this since they owned slaves, but others such as John Adams found it abhorrent.
They foresaw that things would change in the future and perhaps bring about the perfect union they sought; thus they built into the nation's laws the capacity for change. However, reactionary forces have not always welcomed that change, especially when it threatens entrenched interests or asks people to challenge their own prejudices.
The Civil Rights movement was one of the most important movements to bring America's reality and its ideals into greater alignment, by asserting the now hopefully uncontroversial position that skin color is not a reason for denying a person's full participation in their own democracy and its economy.
The fact that this is seen as pretty darn obvious to our generation is owed to the work of heroic leaders like Martin Luther King, John Lewis, Dorothy Height, Rosa Parks, Gloria Richardson, and more. In remembering their deeds, we honor them and carry on their work. So let's get to it! | 270 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|Prince of Wales|
Anonymous portrait, c. 1501
|Born||19/20 September 1486|
Winchester Cathedral Priory, Winchester, Kingdom of England
|Died||2 April 1502 (aged 15)|
Ludlow Castle, Ludlow, Shropshire, Kingdom of England
|Burial||25 April 1502|
Catherine of Aragon (m. 1501)
|Father||Henry VII of England|
|Mother||Elizabeth of York|
|House of Tudor|
Arthur Tudor (19/20 September 1486 - 2 April 1502) was Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester and Duke of Cornwall. As the eldest son and heir apparent of Henry VII of England, Arthur was viewed by contemporaries as the great hope of the newly established House of Tudor. His mother, Elizabeth of York, was the daughter of Edward IV, and his birth cemented the union between the House of Tudor and the House of York.
Plans for Arthur's marriage began before his third birthday; he was installed as Prince of Wales two years later. At the age of eleven, he was formally betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, a daughter of the powerful Catholic Monarchs in Spain, in an effort to forge an Anglo-Spanish alliance against France. Arthur was well educated and, contrary to some modern belief, was in good health for the majority of his life. Soon after his marriage to Catherine in 1501, the couple took up residence at Ludlow Castle in Shropshire, where Arthur died six months later of an unknown ailment. Catherine later firmly stated that the marriage had not been consummated.
One year after Arthur's death, Henry VII renewed his efforts of sealing a marital alliance with Spain by arranging for Catherine to marry Arthur's younger brother Henry, who had by then become Prince of Wales. Arthur's untimely death paved the way for Henry's accession as Henry VIII in 1509. The question as to the potential consummation of Arthur and Catherine's marriage was much later (and in a completely different political context) exploited by Henry and his court to cast doubt on the validity of Catherine's union with Henry, eventually leading to the separation between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.
Henry VII became King of England upon defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. In an effort to strengthen the Tudor claim to the throne, Henry had royal genealogists trace his lineage back to the ancient British rulers and decided on naming his firstborn son after the legendary King Arthur. On this occasion, Camelot was identified as present-day Winchester, and his wife, Elizabeth of York, was sent to Saint Swithun's Priory (today Winchester Cathedral Priory) in order to give birth there. Born at Saint Swithun's Priory on the night of 19/20 September 1486 at about 1 am, Arthur was Henry and Elizabeth's eldest child. Arthur's birth was anticipated by French and Italian humanists eager for the start of a "Virgilian golden age". Sir Francis Bacon wrote that although the Prince was born one month premature, he was "strong and able". Young Arthur was viewed as "a living symbol" of not only the union between the House of Tudor and the House of York, to which his mother belonged as the daughter of Edward IV, but also of the end of the Wars of the Roses. In the opinion of contemporaries, Arthur was the great hope of the newly established House of Tudor.
Arthur became Duke of Cornwall at birth. Four days after his birth, he was baptised at Winchester Cathedral by the Bishop of Worcester, John Alcock, and his baptism was immediately followed by his confirmation.John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford, Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, William FitzAlan, 16th Earl of Arundel, Queen Elizabeth Woodville and Cecily of York served as godparents; the latter two, his grandmother and aunt, respectively, carried the prince during the ceremony. Initially, Arthur's nursery in Farnham was headed by Elizabeth Darcy, who had served as chief nurse for Edward IV's children, including Arthur's own mother. After Arthur was created Prince of Wales in 1490, he was awarded a household structure at the behest of his father. Over the next thirteen years, Henry VII and Elizabeth would have six more children, of whom only three--Margaret, Henry and Mary--would reach adulthood. Arthur was especially close to his sister Margaret (b. 1489) and his brother Henry (b. 1491), with whom he shared a nursery.
On 29 November 1489, after being made a Knight of the Bath, Arthur was appointed Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, and was invested as such at the Palace of Westminster on 27 February 1490. As part of his investiture ceremony, he progressed down the River Thames in the royal barge and was met at Chelsea by the Lord Mayor of London, John Mathewe, and at Lambeth by Spanish ambassadors. On 8 May 1491, he was made a Knight of the Garter at Saint George's Chapel at Windsor Palace. It was around this time that Arthur began his formal education under John Rede, a former headmaster of Winchester College. His education was subsequently taken over by Bernard André, a blind poet, and then by Thomas Linacre, formerly Henry VII's physician. Arthur's education covered grammar, poetry, rhetoric and ethics and focused on history. Arthur was a very skilled pupil and André wrote that the Prince of Wales had either memorised or read a selection of Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Terence, a good deal of Cicero and a wide span of historical works, including those of Thucydides, Caesar, Livy and Tacitus. Arthur was also a "superb archer", and had learned to dance "right pleasant and honourably" by 1501.
The popular belief that Arthur was sickly during his lifetime stems from a Victorian misunderstanding of a letter from 1502; on the contrary, there are no reports of Arthur being ill during his lifetime. Arthur grew up to be unusually tall for his age, and was considered handsome by the Spanish court: he had reddish hair, small eyes, a high-bridged nose and resembled his brother Henry, who was said to be "extremely handsome" by contemporaries. As described by historians Steven Gunn and Linda Monckton, Arthur had an "amiable and gentle" personality and was, overall, a "delicate lad".
In May 1490 Arthur was created warden of all the marches towards Scotland and the Earl of Surrey was appointed as the Prince's deputy. From 1491, Arthur was named on peace commissions. In October 1492, when his father travelled to France, he was named Keeper of England and King's Lieutenant. Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII set up the Council of Wales and the Marches for Arthur in Wales, in order to enforce royal authority there. Although the council had already been set up in 1490, it was headed by Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford. Arthur was first dispatched to Wales in 1501, at the age of fifteen. In March 1493, Arthur was granted the power to appoint justices of oyer and terminer and inquire into franchises, thus strengthening the council's authority. In November of that year, the Prince also received an extensive land grant in Wales, including the County of March.
Arthur was served by sons of English, Irish and Welsh nobility, such as Gerald FitzGerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, who had been brought to the English court as a consequence of the involvement of his father, Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare, in the crowning of pretender Lambert Simnel in Ireland during Henry VII's reign. Other servants were Anthony Willoughby, a son of Robert Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby de Broke, Robert Radcliffe, the heir of the 9th Baron FitzWalter and Maurice St John, a favourite nephew of Arthur's grandmother Lady Margaret Beaufort. He was brought up with Gruffydd ap Rhys ap Thomas, the son of powerful Welsh nobleman Rhys ap Thomas, Gruffydd grew quite close to Arthur and was buried in Worcester Cathedral upon his death in 1521, alongside the Prince's tomb.
Henry VII planned to marry Arthur to a daughter of the Catholic Monarchs, Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, in order to forge an Anglo-Spanish alliance against France. It was suggested that the choice of marrying Arthur to Ferdinand and Isabella's youngest daughter, Catherine (b. 1485), would be appropriate. The Treaty of Medina del Campo (27 March 1489) provided that Arthur and Catherine would be married as soon as they reached canonical age; it also settled Catherine's dowry at 200,000 crowns (the equivalent of £5 million in 2007). Since Arthur, not yet 14, was below the age of consent, a papal dispensation (i.e., waiver) allowing the marriage was issued in February 1497, and the pair were betrothed by proxy on 25 August 1497. Two years later, a marriage by proxy took place at Arthur's Tickenhill Manor in Bewdley, near Worcester; Arthur said to Roderigo de Puebla, who had acted as proxy for Catherine, that "he much rejoiced to contract the marriage because of his deep and sincere love for the Princess".
In a letter from October 1499, Arthur, referring to Catherine as "my dearest spouse", had written:
"I cannot tell you what an earnest desire I feel to see your Highness, and how vexatious to me is this procrastination about your coming. Let [it] be hastened, [that] the love conceived between us and the wished-for joys may reap their proper fruit."
The young couple exchanged letters in Latin until 20 September 1501, when Arthur, having attained the age of 15, was deemed old enough to be married. Catherine landed in England about two weeks later, on 2 October 1501, at Plymouth. The next month, on 4 November 1501, the couple met for the first time at Dogmersfield in Hampshire. Arthur wrote to Catherine's parents that he would be "a true and loving husband"; the couple soon discovered that they had mastered different pronunciations of Latin and so were unable to easily communicate. Five days later, on 9 November 1501, Catherine arrived in London.
On 14 November 1501, the marriage ceremony finally took place at Saint Paul's Cathedral; both Arthur and Catherine wore white satin. The ceremony was conducted by Henry Deane, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was assisted by William Warham, Bishop of London. Following the ceremony, Arthur and Catherine left the Cathedral and headed for Baynard's Castle, where they were entertained by "the best voiced children of the King's chapel, who sang right sweetly with quaint harmony".
What followed was a bedding ceremony laid down by Arthur's grandmother Lady Margaret Beaufort: the bed was sprinkled with holy water, after which Catherine was led away from the wedding feast by her ladies-in-waiting. She was undressed, veiled and "reverently" laid in bed, while Arthur, "in his shirt, with a gown cast about him", was escorted by his gentlemen into the bedchamber, while viols and tabors played. The Bishop of London blessed the bed and prayed for the marriage to be fruitful, after which the couple were left alone. This is the only public bedding of a royal couple recorded in Britain in the 16th century.
After residing at Tickenhill Manor for a month, Arthur and Catherine headed for the Welsh Marches, where they established their household at Ludlow Castle. Arthur had been growing weaker since his wedding, and although Catherine was reluctant to follow him, she was ordered by Henry VII to join her husband. Arthur found it easy to govern Wales, as the border had become quiet after many centuries of warfare. In March 1502, Arthur and Catherine were afflicted by an unknown illness, "a malign vapour which proceeded from the air."[note 1] While Catherine recovered, Arthur died on 2 April 1502 at Ludlow, six months short of his sixteenth birthday.
News of Arthur's death reached Henry VII's court late on 4 April. The King was awoken from his sleep by his confessor, who quoted Job by asking Henry "If we receive good things at the hands of God, why may we not endure evil things?" He then told the king that "[his] dearest son hath departed to God," and Henry burst into tears. "Grief-stricken and emotional," he then had his wife brought into his chambers, so that they might "take the painful news together"; Elizabeth reminded Henry that God had helped him become king and "had ever preserved him," adding that they had been left with "yet a fair Prince and two fair princesses and that God is where he was, and [they were] both young enough." Soon after leaving Henry's bedchamber, Elizabeth collapsed and began to cry, while the ladies sent for the King, who hurriedly came and "relieved her."
On 8 April, a general procession took place for the salvation of Arthur's soul. That night, a dirge was sung in St Paul's Cathedral and every parish church in London. On 23 April, Arthur's body, which had previously been embalmed, sprinkled with holy water and sheltered with a canopy, was carried out of Ludlow Castle and into the Parish Church of Ludlow by various noblemen and gentlemen. On 25 April, Arthur's body was taken to Worcester Cathedral via the River Severn, in a "special wagon upholstered in black and drawn by six horses, also caparisoned in black." As was customary, Catherine did not attend the funeral. The Earl of Surrey acted as chief mourner. At the end of the ceremony, Sir William Uvedale, Sir Richard Croft and Arthur's household ushers broke their staves of office and threw them into the Prince's grave. During the funeral, Arthur's own arms were shown alongside those of Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd and Brutus of Troy. Two years later, a chantry was erected over Arthur's grave.
Shortly after Arthur's death, the idea of betrothing the widowed Catherine to the new heir apparent, Henry, had arisen; Henry VII and Isabella I were keen on moving forward with the betrothal and the pope granted a dispensation towards that end. Henry ascended the throne on 22 April 1509 and married Arthur's widow on 11 June. They had six children; three of their sons died before reaching three months of age, a daughter was stillborn, and another lived for only a week. The couple's surviving child was Mary I (b. 1516). In 1526, Henry started to pursue the affections of Anne Boleyn. At the same time, he became troubled by what became known as the King's "great matter", that is, finding an appropriate solution for his lack of male descendants. It soon became the King's wish to dissolve his marriage and marry Anne, who was more likely to bear children.
Henry believed that his marriage was cursed and found confirmation in the Bible, in Leviticus 20:21.[note 2] Although in the morning following his wedding, Arthur had claimed that he was thirsty "for I have been in the midst of Spain last night" and that "having a wife is a good pastime", these claims are generally dismissed by modern historians as mere boasts of a boy who did not want others to know of his failure. Until the day she died, Catherine maintained that she had married Henry while still a virgin. After Henry's constant support of the claim that Catherine's first marriage had been consummated, an annulment was issued on 23 May 1533, while the King had already married Anne on 25 January. Anne was beheaded for high treason in 1536, after which Henry proceeded to marry four more times. At the time of his death in 1547, Henry only had three living children; the only son, Edward VI, succeeded but died six years later. His successors were Henry's daughters by Catherine and Anne, Mary I and Elizabeth I. Upon Elizabeth's death in 1603, the House of Tudor came to an end.
In 2002, following the initiative of canon Ian MacKenzie, Arthur's funeral was reenacted with a requiem mass at Worcester Cathedral, on occasion of the quincentenary of his death. Despite his role in English history, Arthur has remained largely forgotten since his death.
Arthur has been featured in several historical fiction novels, such as The King's Pleasure, by Norah Lofts and Katherine, The Virgin Widow, by Jean Plaidy. In The Constant Princess, by Philippa Gregory, Catherine promises Arthur to marry his brother, thus fulfilling not only her own destiny of becoming Queen of England, but also the couple's plans for the future of the kingdom.The Alteration, by Kingsley Amis, is an alternate history novel centred on the "War of the English Succession", during which Henry VIII attempts to usurp the throne of his nephew, Stephen II, Arthur and Catherine's son.
The historical drama The Six Wives of Henry VIII was broadcast in 1970, with Martin Ratcliffe as "Prince Arthur". In 1972, BBC2 aired a historical miniseries titled The Shadow of the Tower, with "Lord Arthur, Prince of Wales" played by Jason Kemp. He is portrayed by Angus Imrie in 2019 period drama The Spanish Princess.
|Ancestors of Arthur, Prince of Wales| | <urn:uuid:3a9e7be5-be7a-43de-86a6-c8a205a3e8d6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=Arthur,_Prince_of_Wales | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00400.warc.gz | en | 0.984717 | 3,682 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.3089441955089569,
0.3697420358657837,
0.3696349561214447,
0.03383985534310341,
-0.24746526777744293,
-0.19329923391342163,
0.2020764946937561,
0.008412599563598633,
0.013242632150650024,
-0.0609176903963089,
0.0033313038293272257,
-0.48225635290145874,
0.2800198197364807,
0.399949193000... | 1 | |Prince of Wales|
Anonymous portrait, c. 1501
|Born||19/20 September 1486|
Winchester Cathedral Priory, Winchester, Kingdom of England
|Died||2 April 1502 (aged 15)|
Ludlow Castle, Ludlow, Shropshire, Kingdom of England
|Burial||25 April 1502|
Catherine of Aragon (m. 1501)
|Father||Henry VII of England|
|Mother||Elizabeth of York|
|House of Tudor|
Arthur Tudor (19/20 September 1486 - 2 April 1502) was Prince of Wales, Earl of Chester and Duke of Cornwall. As the eldest son and heir apparent of Henry VII of England, Arthur was viewed by contemporaries as the great hope of the newly established House of Tudor. His mother, Elizabeth of York, was the daughter of Edward IV, and his birth cemented the union between the House of Tudor and the House of York.
Plans for Arthur's marriage began before his third birthday; he was installed as Prince of Wales two years later. At the age of eleven, he was formally betrothed to Catherine of Aragon, a daughter of the powerful Catholic Monarchs in Spain, in an effort to forge an Anglo-Spanish alliance against France. Arthur was well educated and, contrary to some modern belief, was in good health for the majority of his life. Soon after his marriage to Catherine in 1501, the couple took up residence at Ludlow Castle in Shropshire, where Arthur died six months later of an unknown ailment. Catherine later firmly stated that the marriage had not been consummated.
One year after Arthur's death, Henry VII renewed his efforts of sealing a marital alliance with Spain by arranging for Catherine to marry Arthur's younger brother Henry, who had by then become Prince of Wales. Arthur's untimely death paved the way for Henry's accession as Henry VIII in 1509. The question as to the potential consummation of Arthur and Catherine's marriage was much later (and in a completely different political context) exploited by Henry and his court to cast doubt on the validity of Catherine's union with Henry, eventually leading to the separation between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church.
Henry VII became King of England upon defeating Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. In an effort to strengthen the Tudor claim to the throne, Henry had royal genealogists trace his lineage back to the ancient British rulers and decided on naming his firstborn son after the legendary King Arthur. On this occasion, Camelot was identified as present-day Winchester, and his wife, Elizabeth of York, was sent to Saint Swithun's Priory (today Winchester Cathedral Priory) in order to give birth there. Born at Saint Swithun's Priory on the night of 19/20 September 1486 at about 1 am, Arthur was Henry and Elizabeth's eldest child. Arthur's birth was anticipated by French and Italian humanists eager for the start of a "Virgilian golden age". Sir Francis Bacon wrote that although the Prince was born one month premature, he was "strong and able". Young Arthur was viewed as "a living symbol" of not only the union between the House of Tudor and the House of York, to which his mother belonged as the daughter of Edward IV, but also of the end of the Wars of the Roses. In the opinion of contemporaries, Arthur was the great hope of the newly established House of Tudor.
Arthur became Duke of Cornwall at birth. Four days after his birth, he was baptised at Winchester Cathedral by the Bishop of Worcester, John Alcock, and his baptism was immediately followed by his confirmation.John de Vere, 13th Earl of Oxford, Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby, William FitzAlan, 16th Earl of Arundel, Queen Elizabeth Woodville and Cecily of York served as godparents; the latter two, his grandmother and aunt, respectively, carried the prince during the ceremony. Initially, Arthur's nursery in Farnham was headed by Elizabeth Darcy, who had served as chief nurse for Edward IV's children, including Arthur's own mother. After Arthur was created Prince of Wales in 1490, he was awarded a household structure at the behest of his father. Over the next thirteen years, Henry VII and Elizabeth would have six more children, of whom only three--Margaret, Henry and Mary--would reach adulthood. Arthur was especially close to his sister Margaret (b. 1489) and his brother Henry (b. 1491), with whom he shared a nursery.
On 29 November 1489, after being made a Knight of the Bath, Arthur was appointed Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, and was invested as such at the Palace of Westminster on 27 February 1490. As part of his investiture ceremony, he progressed down the River Thames in the royal barge and was met at Chelsea by the Lord Mayor of London, John Mathewe, and at Lambeth by Spanish ambassadors. On 8 May 1491, he was made a Knight of the Garter at Saint George's Chapel at Windsor Palace. It was around this time that Arthur began his formal education under John Rede, a former headmaster of Winchester College. His education was subsequently taken over by Bernard André, a blind poet, and then by Thomas Linacre, formerly Henry VII's physician. Arthur's education covered grammar, poetry, rhetoric and ethics and focused on history. Arthur was a very skilled pupil and André wrote that the Prince of Wales had either memorised or read a selection of Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Terence, a good deal of Cicero and a wide span of historical works, including those of Thucydides, Caesar, Livy and Tacitus. Arthur was also a "superb archer", and had learned to dance "right pleasant and honourably" by 1501.
The popular belief that Arthur was sickly during his lifetime stems from a Victorian misunderstanding of a letter from 1502; on the contrary, there are no reports of Arthur being ill during his lifetime. Arthur grew up to be unusually tall for his age, and was considered handsome by the Spanish court: he had reddish hair, small eyes, a high-bridged nose and resembled his brother Henry, who was said to be "extremely handsome" by contemporaries. As described by historians Steven Gunn and Linda Monckton, Arthur had an "amiable and gentle" personality and was, overall, a "delicate lad".
In May 1490 Arthur was created warden of all the marches towards Scotland and the Earl of Surrey was appointed as the Prince's deputy. From 1491, Arthur was named on peace commissions. In October 1492, when his father travelled to France, he was named Keeper of England and King's Lieutenant. Following the example of Edward IV, Henry VII set up the Council of Wales and the Marches for Arthur in Wales, in order to enforce royal authority there. Although the council had already been set up in 1490, it was headed by Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford. Arthur was first dispatched to Wales in 1501, at the age of fifteen. In March 1493, Arthur was granted the power to appoint justices of oyer and terminer and inquire into franchises, thus strengthening the council's authority. In November of that year, the Prince also received an extensive land grant in Wales, including the County of March.
Arthur was served by sons of English, Irish and Welsh nobility, such as Gerald FitzGerald, 9th Earl of Kildare, who had been brought to the English court as a consequence of the involvement of his father, Gerald FitzGerald, 8th Earl of Kildare, in the crowning of pretender Lambert Simnel in Ireland during Henry VII's reign. Other servants were Anthony Willoughby, a son of Robert Willoughby, 1st Baron Willoughby de Broke, Robert Radcliffe, the heir of the 9th Baron FitzWalter and Maurice St John, a favourite nephew of Arthur's grandmother Lady Margaret Beaufort. He was brought up with Gruffydd ap Rhys ap Thomas, the son of powerful Welsh nobleman Rhys ap Thomas, Gruffydd grew quite close to Arthur and was buried in Worcester Cathedral upon his death in 1521, alongside the Prince's tomb.
Henry VII planned to marry Arthur to a daughter of the Catholic Monarchs, Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, in order to forge an Anglo-Spanish alliance against France. It was suggested that the choice of marrying Arthur to Ferdinand and Isabella's youngest daughter, Catherine (b. 1485), would be appropriate. The Treaty of Medina del Campo (27 March 1489) provided that Arthur and Catherine would be married as soon as they reached canonical age; it also settled Catherine's dowry at 200,000 crowns (the equivalent of £5 million in 2007). Since Arthur, not yet 14, was below the age of consent, a papal dispensation (i.e., waiver) allowing the marriage was issued in February 1497, and the pair were betrothed by proxy on 25 August 1497. Two years later, a marriage by proxy took place at Arthur's Tickenhill Manor in Bewdley, near Worcester; Arthur said to Roderigo de Puebla, who had acted as proxy for Catherine, that "he much rejoiced to contract the marriage because of his deep and sincere love for the Princess".
In a letter from October 1499, Arthur, referring to Catherine as "my dearest spouse", had written:
"I cannot tell you what an earnest desire I feel to see your Highness, and how vexatious to me is this procrastination about your coming. Let [it] be hastened, [that] the love conceived between us and the wished-for joys may reap their proper fruit."
The young couple exchanged letters in Latin until 20 September 1501, when Arthur, having attained the age of 15, was deemed old enough to be married. Catherine landed in England about two weeks later, on 2 October 1501, at Plymouth. The next month, on 4 November 1501, the couple met for the first time at Dogmersfield in Hampshire. Arthur wrote to Catherine's parents that he would be "a true and loving husband"; the couple soon discovered that they had mastered different pronunciations of Latin and so were unable to easily communicate. Five days later, on 9 November 1501, Catherine arrived in London.
On 14 November 1501, the marriage ceremony finally took place at Saint Paul's Cathedral; both Arthur and Catherine wore white satin. The ceremony was conducted by Henry Deane, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was assisted by William Warham, Bishop of London. Following the ceremony, Arthur and Catherine left the Cathedral and headed for Baynard's Castle, where they were entertained by "the best voiced children of the King's chapel, who sang right sweetly with quaint harmony".
What followed was a bedding ceremony laid down by Arthur's grandmother Lady Margaret Beaufort: the bed was sprinkled with holy water, after which Catherine was led away from the wedding feast by her ladies-in-waiting. She was undressed, veiled and "reverently" laid in bed, while Arthur, "in his shirt, with a gown cast about him", was escorted by his gentlemen into the bedchamber, while viols and tabors played. The Bishop of London blessed the bed and prayed for the marriage to be fruitful, after which the couple were left alone. This is the only public bedding of a royal couple recorded in Britain in the 16th century.
After residing at Tickenhill Manor for a month, Arthur and Catherine headed for the Welsh Marches, where they established their household at Ludlow Castle. Arthur had been growing weaker since his wedding, and although Catherine was reluctant to follow him, she was ordered by Henry VII to join her husband. Arthur found it easy to govern Wales, as the border had become quiet after many centuries of warfare. In March 1502, Arthur and Catherine were afflicted by an unknown illness, "a malign vapour which proceeded from the air."[note 1] While Catherine recovered, Arthur died on 2 April 1502 at Ludlow, six months short of his sixteenth birthday.
News of Arthur's death reached Henry VII's court late on 4 April. The King was awoken from his sleep by his confessor, who quoted Job by asking Henry "If we receive good things at the hands of God, why may we not endure evil things?" He then told the king that "[his] dearest son hath departed to God," and Henry burst into tears. "Grief-stricken and emotional," he then had his wife brought into his chambers, so that they might "take the painful news together"; Elizabeth reminded Henry that God had helped him become king and "had ever preserved him," adding that they had been left with "yet a fair Prince and two fair princesses and that God is where he was, and [they were] both young enough." Soon after leaving Henry's bedchamber, Elizabeth collapsed and began to cry, while the ladies sent for the King, who hurriedly came and "relieved her."
On 8 April, a general procession took place for the salvation of Arthur's soul. That night, a dirge was sung in St Paul's Cathedral and every parish church in London. On 23 April, Arthur's body, which had previously been embalmed, sprinkled with holy water and sheltered with a canopy, was carried out of Ludlow Castle and into the Parish Church of Ludlow by various noblemen and gentlemen. On 25 April, Arthur's body was taken to Worcester Cathedral via the River Severn, in a "special wagon upholstered in black and drawn by six horses, also caparisoned in black." As was customary, Catherine did not attend the funeral. The Earl of Surrey acted as chief mourner. At the end of the ceremony, Sir William Uvedale, Sir Richard Croft and Arthur's household ushers broke their staves of office and threw them into the Prince's grave. During the funeral, Arthur's own arms were shown alongside those of Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd and Brutus of Troy. Two years later, a chantry was erected over Arthur's grave.
Shortly after Arthur's death, the idea of betrothing the widowed Catherine to the new heir apparent, Henry, had arisen; Henry VII and Isabella I were keen on moving forward with the betrothal and the pope granted a dispensation towards that end. Henry ascended the throne on 22 April 1509 and married Arthur's widow on 11 June. They had six children; three of their sons died before reaching three months of age, a daughter was stillborn, and another lived for only a week. The couple's surviving child was Mary I (b. 1516). In 1526, Henry started to pursue the affections of Anne Boleyn. At the same time, he became troubled by what became known as the King's "great matter", that is, finding an appropriate solution for his lack of male descendants. It soon became the King's wish to dissolve his marriage and marry Anne, who was more likely to bear children.
Henry believed that his marriage was cursed and found confirmation in the Bible, in Leviticus 20:21.[note 2] Although in the morning following his wedding, Arthur had claimed that he was thirsty "for I have been in the midst of Spain last night" and that "having a wife is a good pastime", these claims are generally dismissed by modern historians as mere boasts of a boy who did not want others to know of his failure. Until the day she died, Catherine maintained that she had married Henry while still a virgin. After Henry's constant support of the claim that Catherine's first marriage had been consummated, an annulment was issued on 23 May 1533, while the King had already married Anne on 25 January. Anne was beheaded for high treason in 1536, after which Henry proceeded to marry four more times. At the time of his death in 1547, Henry only had three living children; the only son, Edward VI, succeeded but died six years later. His successors were Henry's daughters by Catherine and Anne, Mary I and Elizabeth I. Upon Elizabeth's death in 1603, the House of Tudor came to an end.
In 2002, following the initiative of canon Ian MacKenzie, Arthur's funeral was reenacted with a requiem mass at Worcester Cathedral, on occasion of the quincentenary of his death. Despite his role in English history, Arthur has remained largely forgotten since his death.
Arthur has been featured in several historical fiction novels, such as The King's Pleasure, by Norah Lofts and Katherine, The Virgin Widow, by Jean Plaidy. In The Constant Princess, by Philippa Gregory, Catherine promises Arthur to marry his brother, thus fulfilling not only her own destiny of becoming Queen of England, but also the couple's plans for the future of the kingdom.The Alteration, by Kingsley Amis, is an alternate history novel centred on the "War of the English Succession", during which Henry VIII attempts to usurp the throne of his nephew, Stephen II, Arthur and Catherine's son.
The historical drama The Six Wives of Henry VIII was broadcast in 1970, with Martin Ratcliffe as "Prince Arthur". In 1972, BBC2 aired a historical miniseries titled The Shadow of the Tower, with "Lord Arthur, Prince of Wales" played by Jason Kemp. He is portrayed by Angus Imrie in 2019 period drama The Spanish Princess.
|Ancestors of Arthur, Prince of Wales| | 3,860 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What are Aneurysms?
Aneurysms are a bulge in a blood vessel, usually an artery, caused by a weakening of the walls of that blood vessels. This can be caused by conditions such as congenital diseases, physical injury to the artery, or atherosclerosis. As long as aneurysms do not rupture, these bulges in the arteries can sometimes remain undetected in canines for years, particularly in locations such as the brain and the abdominal aorta. If an aneurysm bursts in the brain or in the aortic arteries coming from the heart, the results can be dire. In many cases, aneurysms can also cause dangerous blood clots to form.
Aneurysms are bulges that develop in the blood vessels due to a weakness that occurs in the vessel walls. Aneurysms usually arise in the arteries and can be extremely dangerous when they rupture.
Book First Walk Free!
Symptoms of Aneurysms in Dogs
Symptoms of an aneurysm in dogs depend on where in the body they are located and sometimes show no symptoms until after they rupture. Symptoms of a cerebral aneurysm are generally non-existent until the vessel ruptures. When the blood vessel does break you may see:
- Bleeding from ears or nostrils
- Blue skin
- Loss of consciousness
- Rapid breathing
- Sudden death
- Unusual posture
Symptoms of an aortic aneurysm can cause some chest, back, or abdominal pain, but more often than not, there are no symptoms prior to rupture. Rupture can cause:
- Blue skin
- Bulge in the chest
- Pain in the chest or back
- Shortness of breath
- Sudden death
Other aneurysms can occur anywhere in the body and if symptoms do arise with or without a tear they may include:
- Cold limbs
- Lack of a pulse
- Leg pain
- Limb pain or weakness, particularly after exercise
- Paralysis of limb or limbs
- Pulsating lumps
A cerebral aneurysm is a weakened blood vessel that is located in the brain, it is exceedingly rare that a cerebral aneurysm is detected before it ruptures, and brain aneurysms that rupture are usually fatal.
A peripheral aneurysm refers to an aneurysm that occurs anywhere other than the brain or heart. These can take place in any part of the body but are most common behind the knee, in the groin area, and the carotid artery in the neck.
An aortic aneurysm affects the aorta and can be found either at the spot where the aorta extends into the chest (thoracic) or where the aorta narrows towards the dog’s hips (abdominal). The abdominal aneurysms are slightly more common than the thoracic.
Causes of Aneurysms in Dogs
The causes of an aneurysm are numerous, and some reasons are unique to a particular type of aneurysm. Elements that can contribute to any kind of aneurysm in your pet include:
- Fungal infections
- High blood pressure
- Parasite infestation
- Undetected congenital conditions
There also seems to a link to familial aortic aneurysm in the Leonberger breed, and head trauma can contribute to a cerebral aneurysm. In humans, cigarette smoke can be a significant contributing factor in developing abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Diagnosis of Aneurysms in Dogs
When an aneurysm is located in the brain, the lack of symptoms generally means that the diagnosis is made post-mortem as the rupture causes cerebral hemorrhage, leading to an extremely rapid decline or instant death. On extremely rare occasions an aneurysm in the brain is caught when imaging the brain for another disorder.
Aneurysms of the aorta are often diagnosed using imaging techniques such as MRI, transthoracic echocardiography, or transesophageal echocardiography.
As peripheral aneurysms are also less likely than the others to rupture they may continue undetected for quite some time. If the bulging vessel is located near the skin, a pulsating lump may be detected by touch. In many cases, your dog's doctor will image the area by ultrasound to further investigate.
Treatment of Aneurysms in Dogs
Cerebral aneurysms are almost universally fatal, sometimes within seconds. Treatment for aortic aneurysms is also extremely limited. Surgery to repair the aorta may take place, but depending on the placement and the dog’s condition, it is often not feasible. Studies are being done on aneurysms using two embolization gels to repair leaks and promote healing, but the testing is still in its infancy. Aneurysms in the legs and other areas may be left untreated if they don’t appear to be causing a problem. Many peripheral aneurysms remain static, although they will be monitored by your veterinarian.
Dogs who develop aortic or peripheral aneurysms are also at a higher risk of developing blood clots. Clots that form at the site of an aneurysm may travel to other parts of the body before lodging in a blood vessel. If this occurs, blood flow past the clot can be interrupted and can cause severe damage to the tissues or organs that are starved of blood, beyond the clot. As this condition can also potentially be fatal, your veterinarian may want to take steps to reduce clotting as well.
Recovery of Aneurysms in Dogs
The prognosis for a dog with an intact aneurysm is guarded. An aneurysm can rupture at any time, or it may never rupture. If it does burst the expected recovery depends on where the weakness is located. When either cerebral or aortic aneurysms rupture, the prognosis is poor, and even a rupture of a peripheral aneurysm can be fatal if it occurs in an artery like the femoral artery, which bleeds out quickly. If your canine companion exhibits any of the signs of an aneurysm, getting them into the clinic as quickly as possible gives them the best shot of survival.
Aneurysms Questions and Advice from Veterinary Professionals
My 12 year old mixed breed dog, Earl,died three days ago. He was very healthy for his age and people couldn't believe he was 12. We walked most every day and always took some very steep hills, his weight was perfect, the only medicine he was on was glucosamine for the beginnings of arthritis.
I was at work and my husband texted me at 4:30 saying the dog was sick and I should come home. He was reluctant to tell me, but finally said he thought Earl could be dying. I rushed home. According to my husband, he fed Earl and the cat as usual. Earl ate his food and then licked the cat's dish, as he always did. Then he walked out of the kitchen and my husband heard him fall over. He went to see what happened and Earl was laying on the floor, his eyes were bulging and his body appeared to be convulsing. Then his legs got stiff and his eyes became fixed.
Then I got home, called the vet to say we were coming, wrapped him in a towel, and got in the car. The vet examined him and said he thought he either had an aneurysm, stroke, or less likely, a seizure. He said Earl had a 50/50 chance of making it through the next hour and if he did, only a 25% chance of living through the night. He said we could either take him home with pain meds in him, and possibly have to bring him in at 2 a.m. for pain relief, or leave him at the vet with IV fluids, valium and steroids.
I was in shock at this point, I had thought by dear little dog would live to be at least 14. I asked if I could sit with him, because if he died in the next hour, I wanted to at least be there for him. I went in back and his eyes were not seeing me, he was not responding to my touch or voice as he normally would. It was as though he was already gone, just his body remained. The Dr.said he had no pulse points in his legs and didn't have any pain responses. I think the vet knew it was a lost cause but was trying to soften the blow for me.
I wanted to give my dog every chance to survive, so I said, since he was still alive after the hour, to start the IV fluids and see if he made it through the night. Then I had to say good bye to my sweet boy and hope he would make it.
The next morning the vet called and said Earl had passed sometime in the night. He assured me that he was not in any pain and was in a medically induced coma when he died.
That was Wednesday morning, and here it is Friday night. All around me are reminders that my little buddy is gone. He isn't here to greet me when I come home, he isn't here to play with me, he isn't here to eat the crumbs that fall on the floor at dinner. I miss his warm little body on the bed at night.
It's not so bad at work because he wasn't a part of my life there, but coming home is the worst now without him to greet me. I've lost pets before, but there was always a time of decline and sickness where I had to decide when to let them go. With Earl, there was no time to adjust to the idea of losing him. This has been the most difficult pet loss I've ever experienced. My heart goes out to anyone who is or has experienced something similar with their dear pet.
i lost my furry baby his name was peanut he passed away suddenly he just turned 10 years old on January 1st 2020 and he passed away on January 4 2020 i was very shocked he was very happy in the morning the day he died and that night around 1145pm he was having rapid breathing then he wanted my sister to take him to pee @ 145am and she did then he laid in bed with her then he wanted to go to hid own kennel at 430am so he did and then at 745am he was deceased my hurt is crying so much i dont think i will ever get over his death he wasn't just a pet to me he was my child i suffered a very traumatic miscarriage 18 years ago and i couldn't have children after that so he was my life he was there with me when my mom died he got me through some of the toughest times of my life his paws were ready to go but my heart wasn't i thank everyone for there kind words to try help take some of the hurt away😭😭💔💔😭😭🙏🙏
I am so so sorry for your loss! I lost my 3 year old pup in the EXACT same way just yesterday and my heart is in pieces. Thank you for sharing your tragic story. I was feeling so very alone that my healthy and so happy puppy could be gone in a matter of minutes in such a bizzare and tragic way. I do not wish this kind of experience on any pet owner! But I am glad that there is someone out there in the world who can understand how completely devastated me and my family are right now
We just lost our mini Schnauzer Raider, last night. He was 14 had Cushing's, had his spleen removed 1 1/2 years ago. Thought we were losing him then but came thru. We lost our mini Schnauzer Twinkles last June at 17, kidney failure, but we saw it coming and was ready. Raider was our last of 4 pets who grew up with our son. He was fine, played with his toys the night before and I was with him all day yesterday. I went to baseball (I coach) my wife came home, he created her at door like normal self so happy to see her. She took him outside and she said he looked like he was going to throw up, then sat down, stomach cramping. She called me, I rushed home, we took him to our vet. On the way I could tell he was bad, wasn't nervous about car ride. Our vet did x-ray and said huge mass in stomach and he was bleeding inside. I called my son, who was at practice, and he got there quickly. Raider went down hill quick. Doc said he had to put him to sleep he's suffering, he almost died before the meds were put in. Doc doesn't know if the mass was cancer and a blood vessel tore or it was a aortic aneurysm but either way a 14 year old dog, who bleed inside that much wouldn't have survived the surgery or recovery. This one was too quick, we thought we had at least another year. All our pets are gone, feel so alone, we are truly heartbroken
I myself just recently lost our beautiful rescued Chinese Crested Powder Puff girls, Bailey! She was beautiful and only almost 5 or 6 years old. Last Saturday, Bailey and her brother Bandit got into a scuffle and she went at Bandit. Bandit must have quickly nipped her because I fou the wound later. I rushed her to the emergency vet because Bailey wasn't movi on her one side. Within 15 minutes, Bailey was walking and responsive. I still took her to my vet just as a precaution. He said that Bailey pinched a nerve I'm here back and gave her an anti-inflammatory steroid & sent me ho wirth pain medication. Bailey seemed totally fine & I gave her a kiss before I left to run some errands. I came home a few hours later and my Bailey was gone! I felt horrible. But, I knew that her sister Lily was with her because she licked up some blood on her fur. My vet later did a necropsy on his own because he felt horrible. He called me & told me that it had nothing to do with the scuffle between her and Bandit, but that he had a brain aneurysm. I'm totally traumatized and so depressed without my Bailey. I just wish that I could have saved her or been there with her in the end.
I'm so sorry for your Loss. I lost my girl Jessie she was a beautiful Bassett Hound 11 years old just a month ago. She just stopped walking and eating one day? I hand fed her for 5 days I didn't have the money to take her to the vet. On a Thursday she stopped getting up and she couldn't stand or eat it was like she had a stroke? Those was the worst 5 days of my life! I had to go have her put down it distroyed me!
I had a 4 1/2 year old GSD. He began limping suddenly out of nowhere. He yelped when jumping up or laying down. He suddenly began walking with a strange curvature. We took him in and the vet said it was a groin pull. We did xrays, blood, urine... nothing out of the ordinary. We gave him some anti-inflammatory meds and a low dose of tramadol for pain. The next day he seemed happy and was a little more active. That night he refused to eat ground beef and his treats. A few hours later he couldn’t even move. I called the vet and they said it was the tramadol. I carried him into our room and laid with him for a bit. His eyes were still open and he licked me a few times. I woke suddenly in the morning, like something had come over me. I ran to him and he was still warm. No pulse. I rushed him to vet and he was gone. It’s like his soul passed through me and woke me. His nose was still warm. I have no clue what caused his death. The vet wanted 2,000$ to do a necropsy. I had just spent 1,000$ the day before. I never received so many compliments on him. I ran him twice a day. Full speed at the park with a chuckit stick and rubber ball. I have 20 of those balls at least and like 4 sticks. One in each car, and two at his grandmas’ houses. I’m glad I laid with him and stroked his fur and ears. He loved that. I’ll never forget hearing him crying out a little as I fell asleep. It’s been 3 months now and I’m still broken up over it. I was only away from him for a total of 14 days his entire life. I feel like I failed him, but I trusted the vet. I don’t blame them either. Many dogs just suddenly die. Even after a necropsy they still may never find a cause. Like at a high rate as well. I’m looking forward to death now. I want to know where he went. My wife said she saw him laying in his usual spot at his grandma’s house. I buried him in the backyard with my cat of 18 years who also died suddenly. I don’t think I can handle another pet. The lose is just too much.
My husky just died unexpectedly on Saturday. She was only five years old. She died in just a matter of seconds so I am thinking it was an aneurysm. She was the picture of health, etc. I had just played with her that morning before running some errands. Luckily my husband was home when it happened so she wasn't alone. But the pain is almost unbearable. She was a sweet natured dog. I also have her sister from the same litter so her sister is extremely depressed. They have not ever been apart since birth. I hate seeing her like that...my heart is extremely heavy for her and the rest of our family. I still can't believe that she is gone. It just happened so fast without any warning. I too, don't like going home now because I know she is not there. Or walking out of my bedroom in the morning on the way to work. She was usually the first one I would pet and play with. I hope that we made her as happy as she made us. She was a truly wonderful dog.
I'm so sorry for your loss. I unexpectedly lost my blue heeler last Friday. She was a year and 3 months. It hurts your heart and takes time to heal. Try to remember the good times and be thankful for the time you got to spend with Earl. That's what I have to do when I think of my sweet Chloe. Blessings-Jamie
Add a comment to Earl's experience
Was this experience helpful?
Yesterday, my 2 and a half year old bernese mountain dog spent her morning happily playing in the yard. At 11:30 She came up on the porch and had her dental treat as always. She lived on her humans, had a drink and then fell over. By 11:35 She was in a full seizure, body stiff and convulsing, eyes vacant. We took her to the vet immediately. Her temperature had risen to 107. The vet staff worked to stop her seizure for 3 hours, to no avail. At 3:30, we euthanized her. The vet can't say for sure that an aneurysm was to blame, but thought her symptoms were pretty spot on for one. My heart is in pieces and my house just doesn't feel like home. She was literally my (and my husband and grown children's) best friend. My only wish is that I could know if she knew we were there with her through all of it until long after her last breath was taken.
Add a comment to Sula's experience
Was this experience helpful?
I just lost my healthy 9 month old Yorkie, Sully, on Saturday. He woke up Saturday morning just fine. I took him outside to play around 12 and to play in the water as I washed my car. He LOVED running in the water. Everything was normal he was so happy and as I was finishing up I looked over and he just looked like he was drying off in the sun. About five minutes later I told him he needed to come in, it has been so hot that I didn’t like having him out for more then 30 minutes. He wouldn’t come to me, which was very unusual so I walked over and picked him up. That’s when I knew something was wrong. His eyes didn’t look right, he started foaming at the mouth, and he couldn’t walk. I rushed him to the ONLY place opened on a Saturday which come to find out doesn’t have the appropriate equipment for emergencies, but they are listed as an emergency vet. By the time I got there my baby was lifeless. They worked on him and did blood work for about 3 hours only to tell me we needed to send him to a better equipped facility, which was 30 minutes away, but said they didn’t think he would make the drive. I had to have my perfectly healthy puppy euthanized. I am still in shock and my heart is broken. I just don’t understand how this happened or why no one can tell me what happened. The silence in my house is deafening. I don’t know how to move on from this? What happened? Why? I literally waited 2 years for this puppy. I just don’t understand.
Add a comment to Sully's experience
Was this experience helpful?
My healthy 8 year old boxer boy past away yesterday only 30 hours after initial symptoms. It all began when I noticed he wasn't coming when I called him shortly after he had breakfast or his first of his 2 meals he gets per day. I went to check him and noticed he was not standing so I thought he was being lazy but when I picked him up whimpered. So I carefully grabbed him and I stood him up and noticed his back lefts were wobbly. Took to ER vet within the hour to see what was going on and after a very throrough exam Dr. said it appears as if he had a stroke. His legs were weak but able to stand and walk. He also had developed a twitch on his right eye. He was given a shot of anti-inflammatory, anti-anti-inflamatory pills to take and something for his stomach. ER vet sent home and said to bring back if condition worsen. We came back home and he peed and pooped and was still able to walk and stand on his own but laid him to rest. 3-4 hours later we noticed his gums were getting pale almost with a greenish tone and also legs have gotten weaker and more difficult for him to walk and get up so we decided we take him back. This time there is blood work and x-rays and he suspects something bursting. Doc said a tumor around his spleen may have ruptured very common in boxers and checking for bleeding and maybe cause of a clot. Blood work came back a bit off but within normal parameters. He said he was anemic but not necessarily loosing a lot of blood so he went to check x-rays and nothing in x-rays except he says his heart is too small for a boxer... So he wants to keep him over night and put an IV and oxygen therapy through the night... Come back next morning and he can no longer stand, he has an twitch on his lip and he can no longer see. So now is is also blind; he has lost his sight at this point. Gums pail, cold limbs, cold breath. So he says I need to take to a cardiologist and a neurologist ASAP (mind this is Sunday morning). The only thing he says he can do is oxygen therapy but that has not done much through the night as he has continued to worsen. So we take him home while we find him another place to go and we were afraid he died in the clinic. He was calm with a little bit of color on his gums but limbs still cold. So he says we can take him home and to try to keep him calm (mind this is a Sunday morning). We start making phone calls all over Miami and Broward County and of course as expected no specialty clinics are open, only ER vets. So we had him home for 4 hours gave him some pedialite tkeep hydrated and off we went to an animal hospital ER where he would get seen by a ER vet and neurologist the following morning. He stopped breathing 5 minutes after we put him in the car on the way to new ER. Tried to do CPR at no avail and ER clinic 20 minute drive.
But... Wait... Let me rewind the tape. This dog has been jogging for 45 minutes with my wife the past 5 years every night. Large back yard and plays with is annoying boxer sister all day. And he has a small sick heart...?? There is more... This same week 4 days earlier, he was taken to his regular vet to check a small mass under his chin. He had had blood work, and full chest x-rays which radiologist says all normal. While I understand it could be a a matter of opinion but here is the dilema of a sick heart or not. That day he had an fine needle aspiration under sedation and all went well. I do not believe a sick heart would have stood sedation. So I started reading other deceases that could affect all this at one time. This all happened in less than 30 hours from initial symptoms. Could it be an aneurysm?Thank you.
I had to say goodbye to my dog on July 20th 2018 she was a rescue from a shelter I got her at the age of 3 months and lobster at the age of 2 and 1/2 months her name was Coco Chanel it started with her left leg she was limping around the yard I took her to the vet to check out her left leg from limping 2 Days Later I had to take her to the emergency to find out she had gone blind and it was a brain aneurysm that was the most hardest news and difficult moment to Let Her Go I just couldn't understand how a simple lamp from her left leg turn into her going blind and a brain aneurysm
My 8 yr old female pug, in good shape, got up one morning played a little with me, then while laying next to me, she locked her 4 legs straight out and started yelping, eyes wide open. Within 20 seconds, she quieted down and just died, eyes open, a tongue out a little. This was hard to go through.
Add a comment to Dash's experience
Was this experience helpful?
My dog - a 7 YO chihuahua had to be put down today. He had been suffering from itching skin and I took him to the vet. The vet gave him a shot - which stopped him fro scratching almost immediately. The vet examined my dog and said that he had a yeast infection and athlete's foot. He prescribed Ketoconazole (200 mg) 1/4 table once per day and a medicated antiseptic shampoo - Keto-Med PS Shampoo. That treatment started on 6/13/2018.
I noticed a few days later that my dog would pace the room and on occasion, struggle to
jump up on the couch - it's like he had to calibrate the distance. We still walkes daily and he did not have any problem walking. I could not detect any other signs.
toward the end of June he started having a difficulty standing - his legs started to plsay outward - so I stopped medicating him. On 7/7/2018 I took him to the vet. He checked his blood and there were no abnormalities. He took top down and side view x-rays - there were no lesions no fractures. He did prescribe Carprofen 25 mg daily - I was to give him 1/2 tablet in the AM and 1/2 tablet in the PM. Which I did. The following day - sunday - my dog just lay on his side and could not stand up.
The vet examined him earlier today and told me I needed to get to a specialist - which I did. The brain specialist told me that hibrain was not functioning properly, he was fading fast and it was unlikely, irrespective of the amount of treatment, that he would survive. I had him euthanized and like most pet owners, the loss is very tough.
The doctors at the VCA in W Los Angeles offered to do an autopsy (for $600.00) which I decided wouldn't bring my best friend back.
While I was in the waiting room I was reading about encephalitis - and thought that might be the cause of his death. From what I read online about the disease, the symptoms see to correlate.
The neurologist stated she did not know if that was the case or not. She did state that his brain was not functioning properly.
I was reading on your website about aneurysms in dogs and one of the causes is fungal infection. I was thinking that perhaps I waited too long, when he first started scratching himself (he had red spots on his skin toward his tail) before seeking medical help and that may have been the cause of his death. When the vet examined him on 7/7/ he squeezed the portion of his back near the tail bone and tha caused him to yelp in paid. Bear in mind, that by 7/7 he had stopped itching and the hair had grown back.
The reason for this long note - I want to make sure - to the best of my ability - that I take care of my next rescue dog (my dog that passed today was a rescue dog) and be cognizant of symptoms that are affecting his health.
Your insight is most appreicated
Add a comment to Dexter's experience
Was this experience helpful?
My seemingly healthy dog Blue passed away suddenly 2 days ago. He was fine the morning of his death and then about 5:10 pm I go to feed him before I leave for work like I always do and he was laying there stiff with his legs straight as a board like something happened to him suddenly. I thought he was healthy and happy. He was barking like normal and hyper. I couldn't bear to have him cut open and examined so I just buried him that day. I'm so heartbroken and devastated. This dog was my heart and soul and I raised him myself from a 7 week old puppy. I'm so confused. I don't know what I done wrong. He was my world. I didn't always have the time I wanted to spend with him but I loved him more than anything and I love him still even though he's gone
My sister's dog just got nutured and this morning he was acting weird then all of a sudden blood was coming out of his mouth and he was dead could it have been from an aneurysm or something else. Could the vet giving him too much to put him under for surgery have something to do with it.
I'm not sure why this may have happened. He was acting very normal that morning and was dead that evening. He was healthy as far as I knew. I take my dogs to the vet if they show signs of being sick but he showed 0 signs of distress or sickness
Add a comment to Blue's experience
Was this experience helpful?
Last week, my puppy who had just turned one year old the day before died suddenly. My sisters, brother and I took her for a walk around 8:45, and returned her to our yard at 9:15. We left her outside in the yard, like we always do (we where at our lake house) and came back 20-30 minutes later to find her dead against the fence. She was acting perfectly normal all day, even on the walk she was crazy and hyper as she normally was. When we found her, she was already stiff, and her tounge was black, as where her eyes. She was bit by nothing, and showed no signs of peril before her death. The next day, I checked the yard and found a large spot stained deep red, like tar. It had already rained, yet I still found wet blood on my hand. There was a spot that she must have thrown up (it was at least a pint) a few drops that look like she had staggered to the fence where we found her later. She had no blood on her when we found her. The vet told us that it was either poisoning or a burst artery, but she was around no poisoning at all. Even a week later, we are still questioning how such a healthy, spunky puppy went so quickly. Any suggestions on what the cause was? We have done hours of research and have found realtivley nothing similar to what happened to her.
Condolences on the sudden loss of Callie at such a young age, it is always heart breaking under these circumstances. Without carrying out a full necropsy, we cannot say for sure the cause of death; in dogs Callie’s age, sudden death is usually attributable to poisoning (could have been picked up at any time during the walk) or internal bleeding from an aneurysm or similar defect. Some dogs, like humans are born with defects which act like time bombs which may rupture at anytime, especially after an increase in activity which causes an increase in blood pressure. For an in depth analysis, a necropsy would shed light on your questions. Regards Dr Callum Turner DVM
My 7 year old girl was playing in the yard. She jumped up as if in pain and collapsed. I’m sure it was an aneurysm. I ran to her and we started CPR. I even got animal control and a police escort to the vet while doing CPR. She was immediately intubated and got epi. Nothing they could do. I miss her terribly. 💔
Yesterday, I came back home and my 5 year old husky was particularly pleased to see me, rolling all over to get herself scratched an caressed everywhere. That is always such a tender and precious moment between us too. One hour later, I look for her in order to play with her. She loved to be chased and when I tell her that I'm going to eat her raw, she goes crazy. Always. In the excitement, she slipped on her bum and couldn't stand up again. The next second she was laying on the floor and all of her paws were tensed and shaking. She died in my arms and I am blessed that I was there when it happened. I like to think that I calmed her when I told her how good she was to me. She was not even 5 years old and full of life. I believe the cause was a rupture of aneurysm.
Add a comment to Callie's experience
Was this experience helpful?
my dog was 14 year old maltese she went to the vet because it seemed she was in pain she had had a slight touch of diarrohea she was given scourban by the vet after the second does for some reason she started screaming like she was in pain i put her down to go to the toilet or get a drink she anted neither the screaming continued i took her to the vets they said her temp was normal sh ehad no signs of abdominaldiscomfort they could not find anything wrong. took her home later that night took her back theygave her paim med ir didnt really work took her to anothervet theydid blood tests theysaid her temp and everything wwas normal theygave her pain meds she wasnt eating eventually got het to eat a little baby custard nearly four days later she woke up as usual ran to the end of thebed then ran back looke dshe was going to be sick i picked her up to lift her off she collapsed on her side couldnt stand up her body as stiff hen i picked her up sh elet out a terrible scream her head went to one side she a sdrooling from her mouth her eyes were fixed her body stiff thenshe ent floppy unconscious, i thought she had died i put her in a pen hen i came back shea sbreathing strangley and bleeding either from the nose or mouth i got her to the vets immediatelythey did nothing theylet her die . i do not kno hat happend am looking for a anser
Condolences on your loss, it is normal to want to understand the reason for a loved one passing; but without carrying out a post mortem, we cannot know for sure. Usually sudden deaths or short term illnesses which lead to death are caused by heart conditions (dilated cardiomyopathy for example), the condition may have been with Honey all her life and only manifested itself recently. Other causes like poisoning may have been a cause, but again unless a post mortem is performed we cannot be sure. Regards Dr Callum Turner DVM
Add a comment to honey's experience
Was this experience helpful? | <urn:uuid:c49e580a-29cd-4acb-9f05-e4a29254006d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://wagwalking.com/condition/aneurysms | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00241.warc.gz | en | 0.992081 | 7,780 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.1525968611240387,
-0.28591448068618774,
-0.008573894388973713,
0.07777867466211319,
-0.28252315521240234,
0.11495035886764526,
0.5519808530807495,
0.20180419087409973,
0.1347949206829071,
0.25367575883865356,
0.28986799716949463,
-0.43029770255088806,
-0.14994755387306213,
0.35561203956... | 1 | What are Aneurysms?
Aneurysms are a bulge in a blood vessel, usually an artery, caused by a weakening of the walls of that blood vessels. This can be caused by conditions such as congenital diseases, physical injury to the artery, or atherosclerosis. As long as aneurysms do not rupture, these bulges in the arteries can sometimes remain undetected in canines for years, particularly in locations such as the brain and the abdominal aorta. If an aneurysm bursts in the brain or in the aortic arteries coming from the heart, the results can be dire. In many cases, aneurysms can also cause dangerous blood clots to form.
Aneurysms are bulges that develop in the blood vessels due to a weakness that occurs in the vessel walls. Aneurysms usually arise in the arteries and can be extremely dangerous when they rupture.
Book First Walk Free!
Symptoms of Aneurysms in Dogs
Symptoms of an aneurysm in dogs depend on where in the body they are located and sometimes show no symptoms until after they rupture. Symptoms of a cerebral aneurysm are generally non-existent until the vessel ruptures. When the blood vessel does break you may see:
- Bleeding from ears or nostrils
- Blue skin
- Loss of consciousness
- Rapid breathing
- Sudden death
- Unusual posture
Symptoms of an aortic aneurysm can cause some chest, back, or abdominal pain, but more often than not, there are no symptoms prior to rupture. Rupture can cause:
- Blue skin
- Bulge in the chest
- Pain in the chest or back
- Shortness of breath
- Sudden death
Other aneurysms can occur anywhere in the body and if symptoms do arise with or without a tear they may include:
- Cold limbs
- Lack of a pulse
- Leg pain
- Limb pain or weakness, particularly after exercise
- Paralysis of limb or limbs
- Pulsating lumps
A cerebral aneurysm is a weakened blood vessel that is located in the brain, it is exceedingly rare that a cerebral aneurysm is detected before it ruptures, and brain aneurysms that rupture are usually fatal.
A peripheral aneurysm refers to an aneurysm that occurs anywhere other than the brain or heart. These can take place in any part of the body but are most common behind the knee, in the groin area, and the carotid artery in the neck.
An aortic aneurysm affects the aorta and can be found either at the spot where the aorta extends into the chest (thoracic) or where the aorta narrows towards the dog’s hips (abdominal). The abdominal aneurysms are slightly more common than the thoracic.
Causes of Aneurysms in Dogs
The causes of an aneurysm are numerous, and some reasons are unique to a particular type of aneurysm. Elements that can contribute to any kind of aneurysm in your pet include:
- Fungal infections
- High blood pressure
- Parasite infestation
- Undetected congenital conditions
There also seems to a link to familial aortic aneurysm in the Leonberger breed, and head trauma can contribute to a cerebral aneurysm. In humans, cigarette smoke can be a significant contributing factor in developing abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Diagnosis of Aneurysms in Dogs
When an aneurysm is located in the brain, the lack of symptoms generally means that the diagnosis is made post-mortem as the rupture causes cerebral hemorrhage, leading to an extremely rapid decline or instant death. On extremely rare occasions an aneurysm in the brain is caught when imaging the brain for another disorder.
Aneurysms of the aorta are often diagnosed using imaging techniques such as MRI, transthoracic echocardiography, or transesophageal echocardiography.
As peripheral aneurysms are also less likely than the others to rupture they may continue undetected for quite some time. If the bulging vessel is located near the skin, a pulsating lump may be detected by touch. In many cases, your dog's doctor will image the area by ultrasound to further investigate.
Treatment of Aneurysms in Dogs
Cerebral aneurysms are almost universally fatal, sometimes within seconds. Treatment for aortic aneurysms is also extremely limited. Surgery to repair the aorta may take place, but depending on the placement and the dog’s condition, it is often not feasible. Studies are being done on aneurysms using two embolization gels to repair leaks and promote healing, but the testing is still in its infancy. Aneurysms in the legs and other areas may be left untreated if they don’t appear to be causing a problem. Many peripheral aneurysms remain static, although they will be monitored by your veterinarian.
Dogs who develop aortic or peripheral aneurysms are also at a higher risk of developing blood clots. Clots that form at the site of an aneurysm may travel to other parts of the body before lodging in a blood vessel. If this occurs, blood flow past the clot can be interrupted and can cause severe damage to the tissues or organs that are starved of blood, beyond the clot. As this condition can also potentially be fatal, your veterinarian may want to take steps to reduce clotting as well.
Recovery of Aneurysms in Dogs
The prognosis for a dog with an intact aneurysm is guarded. An aneurysm can rupture at any time, or it may never rupture. If it does burst the expected recovery depends on where the weakness is located. When either cerebral or aortic aneurysms rupture, the prognosis is poor, and even a rupture of a peripheral aneurysm can be fatal if it occurs in an artery like the femoral artery, which bleeds out quickly. If your canine companion exhibits any of the signs of an aneurysm, getting them into the clinic as quickly as possible gives them the best shot of survival.
Aneurysms Questions and Advice from Veterinary Professionals
My 12 year old mixed breed dog, Earl,died three days ago. He was very healthy for his age and people couldn't believe he was 12. We walked most every day and always took some very steep hills, his weight was perfect, the only medicine he was on was glucosamine for the beginnings of arthritis.
I was at work and my husband texted me at 4:30 saying the dog was sick and I should come home. He was reluctant to tell me, but finally said he thought Earl could be dying. I rushed home. According to my husband, he fed Earl and the cat as usual. Earl ate his food and then licked the cat's dish, as he always did. Then he walked out of the kitchen and my husband heard him fall over. He went to see what happened and Earl was laying on the floor, his eyes were bulging and his body appeared to be convulsing. Then his legs got stiff and his eyes became fixed.
Then I got home, called the vet to say we were coming, wrapped him in a towel, and got in the car. The vet examined him and said he thought he either had an aneurysm, stroke, or less likely, a seizure. He said Earl had a 50/50 chance of making it through the next hour and if he did, only a 25% chance of living through the night. He said we could either take him home with pain meds in him, and possibly have to bring him in at 2 a.m. for pain relief, or leave him at the vet with IV fluids, valium and steroids.
I was in shock at this point, I had thought by dear little dog would live to be at least 14. I asked if I could sit with him, because if he died in the next hour, I wanted to at least be there for him. I went in back and his eyes were not seeing me, he was not responding to my touch or voice as he normally would. It was as though he was already gone, just his body remained. The Dr.said he had no pulse points in his legs and didn't have any pain responses. I think the vet knew it was a lost cause but was trying to soften the blow for me.
I wanted to give my dog every chance to survive, so I said, since he was still alive after the hour, to start the IV fluids and see if he made it through the night. Then I had to say good bye to my sweet boy and hope he would make it.
The next morning the vet called and said Earl had passed sometime in the night. He assured me that he was not in any pain and was in a medically induced coma when he died.
That was Wednesday morning, and here it is Friday night. All around me are reminders that my little buddy is gone. He isn't here to greet me when I come home, he isn't here to play with me, he isn't here to eat the crumbs that fall on the floor at dinner. I miss his warm little body on the bed at night.
It's not so bad at work because he wasn't a part of my life there, but coming home is the worst now without him to greet me. I've lost pets before, but there was always a time of decline and sickness where I had to decide when to let them go. With Earl, there was no time to adjust to the idea of losing him. This has been the most difficult pet loss I've ever experienced. My heart goes out to anyone who is or has experienced something similar with their dear pet.
i lost my furry baby his name was peanut he passed away suddenly he just turned 10 years old on January 1st 2020 and he passed away on January 4 2020 i was very shocked he was very happy in the morning the day he died and that night around 1145pm he was having rapid breathing then he wanted my sister to take him to pee @ 145am and she did then he laid in bed with her then he wanted to go to hid own kennel at 430am so he did and then at 745am he was deceased my hurt is crying so much i dont think i will ever get over his death he wasn't just a pet to me he was my child i suffered a very traumatic miscarriage 18 years ago and i couldn't have children after that so he was my life he was there with me when my mom died he got me through some of the toughest times of my life his paws were ready to go but my heart wasn't i thank everyone for there kind words to try help take some of the hurt away😭😭💔💔😭😭🙏🙏
I am so so sorry for your loss! I lost my 3 year old pup in the EXACT same way just yesterday and my heart is in pieces. Thank you for sharing your tragic story. I was feeling so very alone that my healthy and so happy puppy could be gone in a matter of minutes in such a bizzare and tragic way. I do not wish this kind of experience on any pet owner! But I am glad that there is someone out there in the world who can understand how completely devastated me and my family are right now
We just lost our mini Schnauzer Raider, last night. He was 14 had Cushing's, had his spleen removed 1 1/2 years ago. Thought we were losing him then but came thru. We lost our mini Schnauzer Twinkles last June at 17, kidney failure, but we saw it coming and was ready. Raider was our last of 4 pets who grew up with our son. He was fine, played with his toys the night before and I was with him all day yesterday. I went to baseball (I coach) my wife came home, he created her at door like normal self so happy to see her. She took him outside and she said he looked like he was going to throw up, then sat down, stomach cramping. She called me, I rushed home, we took him to our vet. On the way I could tell he was bad, wasn't nervous about car ride. Our vet did x-ray and said huge mass in stomach and he was bleeding inside. I called my son, who was at practice, and he got there quickly. Raider went down hill quick. Doc said he had to put him to sleep he's suffering, he almost died before the meds were put in. Doc doesn't know if the mass was cancer and a blood vessel tore or it was a aortic aneurysm but either way a 14 year old dog, who bleed inside that much wouldn't have survived the surgery or recovery. This one was too quick, we thought we had at least another year. All our pets are gone, feel so alone, we are truly heartbroken
I myself just recently lost our beautiful rescued Chinese Crested Powder Puff girls, Bailey! She was beautiful and only almost 5 or 6 years old. Last Saturday, Bailey and her brother Bandit got into a scuffle and she went at Bandit. Bandit must have quickly nipped her because I fou the wound later. I rushed her to the emergency vet because Bailey wasn't movi on her one side. Within 15 minutes, Bailey was walking and responsive. I still took her to my vet just as a precaution. He said that Bailey pinched a nerve I'm here back and gave her an anti-inflammatory steroid & sent me ho wirth pain medication. Bailey seemed totally fine & I gave her a kiss before I left to run some errands. I came home a few hours later and my Bailey was gone! I felt horrible. But, I knew that her sister Lily was with her because she licked up some blood on her fur. My vet later did a necropsy on his own because he felt horrible. He called me & told me that it had nothing to do with the scuffle between her and Bandit, but that he had a brain aneurysm. I'm totally traumatized and so depressed without my Bailey. I just wish that I could have saved her or been there with her in the end.
I'm so sorry for your Loss. I lost my girl Jessie she was a beautiful Bassett Hound 11 years old just a month ago. She just stopped walking and eating one day? I hand fed her for 5 days I didn't have the money to take her to the vet. On a Thursday she stopped getting up and she couldn't stand or eat it was like she had a stroke? Those was the worst 5 days of my life! I had to go have her put down it distroyed me!
I had a 4 1/2 year old GSD. He began limping suddenly out of nowhere. He yelped when jumping up or laying down. He suddenly began walking with a strange curvature. We took him in and the vet said it was a groin pull. We did xrays, blood, urine... nothing out of the ordinary. We gave him some anti-inflammatory meds and a low dose of tramadol for pain. The next day he seemed happy and was a little more active. That night he refused to eat ground beef and his treats. A few hours later he couldn’t even move. I called the vet and they said it was the tramadol. I carried him into our room and laid with him for a bit. His eyes were still open and he licked me a few times. I woke suddenly in the morning, like something had come over me. I ran to him and he was still warm. No pulse. I rushed him to vet and he was gone. It’s like his soul passed through me and woke me. His nose was still warm. I have no clue what caused his death. The vet wanted 2,000$ to do a necropsy. I had just spent 1,000$ the day before. I never received so many compliments on him. I ran him twice a day. Full speed at the park with a chuckit stick and rubber ball. I have 20 of those balls at least and like 4 sticks. One in each car, and two at his grandmas’ houses. I’m glad I laid with him and stroked his fur and ears. He loved that. I’ll never forget hearing him crying out a little as I fell asleep. It’s been 3 months now and I’m still broken up over it. I was only away from him for a total of 14 days his entire life. I feel like I failed him, but I trusted the vet. I don’t blame them either. Many dogs just suddenly die. Even after a necropsy they still may never find a cause. Like at a high rate as well. I’m looking forward to death now. I want to know where he went. My wife said she saw him laying in his usual spot at his grandma’s house. I buried him in the backyard with my cat of 18 years who also died suddenly. I don’t think I can handle another pet. The lose is just too much.
My husky just died unexpectedly on Saturday. She was only five years old. She died in just a matter of seconds so I am thinking it was an aneurysm. She was the picture of health, etc. I had just played with her that morning before running some errands. Luckily my husband was home when it happened so she wasn't alone. But the pain is almost unbearable. She was a sweet natured dog. I also have her sister from the same litter so her sister is extremely depressed. They have not ever been apart since birth. I hate seeing her like that...my heart is extremely heavy for her and the rest of our family. I still can't believe that she is gone. It just happened so fast without any warning. I too, don't like going home now because I know she is not there. Or walking out of my bedroom in the morning on the way to work. She was usually the first one I would pet and play with. I hope that we made her as happy as she made us. She was a truly wonderful dog.
I'm so sorry for your loss. I unexpectedly lost my blue heeler last Friday. She was a year and 3 months. It hurts your heart and takes time to heal. Try to remember the good times and be thankful for the time you got to spend with Earl. That's what I have to do when I think of my sweet Chloe. Blessings-Jamie
Add a comment to Earl's experience
Was this experience helpful?
Yesterday, my 2 and a half year old bernese mountain dog spent her morning happily playing in the yard. At 11:30 She came up on the porch and had her dental treat as always. She lived on her humans, had a drink and then fell over. By 11:35 She was in a full seizure, body stiff and convulsing, eyes vacant. We took her to the vet immediately. Her temperature had risen to 107. The vet staff worked to stop her seizure for 3 hours, to no avail. At 3:30, we euthanized her. The vet can't say for sure that an aneurysm was to blame, but thought her symptoms were pretty spot on for one. My heart is in pieces and my house just doesn't feel like home. She was literally my (and my husband and grown children's) best friend. My only wish is that I could know if she knew we were there with her through all of it until long after her last breath was taken.
Add a comment to Sula's experience
Was this experience helpful?
I just lost my healthy 9 month old Yorkie, Sully, on Saturday. He woke up Saturday morning just fine. I took him outside to play around 12 and to play in the water as I washed my car. He LOVED running in the water. Everything was normal he was so happy and as I was finishing up I looked over and he just looked like he was drying off in the sun. About five minutes later I told him he needed to come in, it has been so hot that I didn’t like having him out for more then 30 minutes. He wouldn’t come to me, which was very unusual so I walked over and picked him up. That’s when I knew something was wrong. His eyes didn’t look right, he started foaming at the mouth, and he couldn’t walk. I rushed him to the ONLY place opened on a Saturday which come to find out doesn’t have the appropriate equipment for emergencies, but they are listed as an emergency vet. By the time I got there my baby was lifeless. They worked on him and did blood work for about 3 hours only to tell me we needed to send him to a better equipped facility, which was 30 minutes away, but said they didn’t think he would make the drive. I had to have my perfectly healthy puppy euthanized. I am still in shock and my heart is broken. I just don’t understand how this happened or why no one can tell me what happened. The silence in my house is deafening. I don’t know how to move on from this? What happened? Why? I literally waited 2 years for this puppy. I just don’t understand.
Add a comment to Sully's experience
Was this experience helpful?
My healthy 8 year old boxer boy past away yesterday only 30 hours after initial symptoms. It all began when I noticed he wasn't coming when I called him shortly after he had breakfast or his first of his 2 meals he gets per day. I went to check him and noticed he was not standing so I thought he was being lazy but when I picked him up whimpered. So I carefully grabbed him and I stood him up and noticed his back lefts were wobbly. Took to ER vet within the hour to see what was going on and after a very throrough exam Dr. said it appears as if he had a stroke. His legs were weak but able to stand and walk. He also had developed a twitch on his right eye. He was given a shot of anti-inflammatory, anti-anti-inflamatory pills to take and something for his stomach. ER vet sent home and said to bring back if condition worsen. We came back home and he peed and pooped and was still able to walk and stand on his own but laid him to rest. 3-4 hours later we noticed his gums were getting pale almost with a greenish tone and also legs have gotten weaker and more difficult for him to walk and get up so we decided we take him back. This time there is blood work and x-rays and he suspects something bursting. Doc said a tumor around his spleen may have ruptured very common in boxers and checking for bleeding and maybe cause of a clot. Blood work came back a bit off but within normal parameters. He said he was anemic but not necessarily loosing a lot of blood so he went to check x-rays and nothing in x-rays except he says his heart is too small for a boxer... So he wants to keep him over night and put an IV and oxygen therapy through the night... Come back next morning and he can no longer stand, he has an twitch on his lip and he can no longer see. So now is is also blind; he has lost his sight at this point. Gums pail, cold limbs, cold breath. So he says I need to take to a cardiologist and a neurologist ASAP (mind this is Sunday morning). The only thing he says he can do is oxygen therapy but that has not done much through the night as he has continued to worsen. So we take him home while we find him another place to go and we were afraid he died in the clinic. He was calm with a little bit of color on his gums but limbs still cold. So he says we can take him home and to try to keep him calm (mind this is a Sunday morning). We start making phone calls all over Miami and Broward County and of course as expected no specialty clinics are open, only ER vets. So we had him home for 4 hours gave him some pedialite tkeep hydrated and off we went to an animal hospital ER where he would get seen by a ER vet and neurologist the following morning. He stopped breathing 5 minutes after we put him in the car on the way to new ER. Tried to do CPR at no avail and ER clinic 20 minute drive.
But... Wait... Let me rewind the tape. This dog has been jogging for 45 minutes with my wife the past 5 years every night. Large back yard and plays with is annoying boxer sister all day. And he has a small sick heart...?? There is more... This same week 4 days earlier, he was taken to his regular vet to check a small mass under his chin. He had had blood work, and full chest x-rays which radiologist says all normal. While I understand it could be a a matter of opinion but here is the dilema of a sick heart or not. That day he had an fine needle aspiration under sedation and all went well. I do not believe a sick heart would have stood sedation. So I started reading other deceases that could affect all this at one time. This all happened in less than 30 hours from initial symptoms. Could it be an aneurysm?Thank you.
I had to say goodbye to my dog on July 20th 2018 she was a rescue from a shelter I got her at the age of 3 months and lobster at the age of 2 and 1/2 months her name was Coco Chanel it started with her left leg she was limping around the yard I took her to the vet to check out her left leg from limping 2 Days Later I had to take her to the emergency to find out she had gone blind and it was a brain aneurysm that was the most hardest news and difficult moment to Let Her Go I just couldn't understand how a simple lamp from her left leg turn into her going blind and a brain aneurysm
My 8 yr old female pug, in good shape, got up one morning played a little with me, then while laying next to me, she locked her 4 legs straight out and started yelping, eyes wide open. Within 20 seconds, she quieted down and just died, eyes open, a tongue out a little. This was hard to go through.
Add a comment to Dash's experience
Was this experience helpful?
My dog - a 7 YO chihuahua had to be put down today. He had been suffering from itching skin and I took him to the vet. The vet gave him a shot - which stopped him fro scratching almost immediately. The vet examined my dog and said that he had a yeast infection and athlete's foot. He prescribed Ketoconazole (200 mg) 1/4 table once per day and a medicated antiseptic shampoo - Keto-Med PS Shampoo. That treatment started on 6/13/2018.
I noticed a few days later that my dog would pace the room and on occasion, struggle to
jump up on the couch - it's like he had to calibrate the distance. We still walkes daily and he did not have any problem walking. I could not detect any other signs.
toward the end of June he started having a difficulty standing - his legs started to plsay outward - so I stopped medicating him. On 7/7/2018 I took him to the vet. He checked his blood and there were no abnormalities. He took top down and side view x-rays - there were no lesions no fractures. He did prescribe Carprofen 25 mg daily - I was to give him 1/2 tablet in the AM and 1/2 tablet in the PM. Which I did. The following day - sunday - my dog just lay on his side and could not stand up.
The vet examined him earlier today and told me I needed to get to a specialist - which I did. The brain specialist told me that hibrain was not functioning properly, he was fading fast and it was unlikely, irrespective of the amount of treatment, that he would survive. I had him euthanized and like most pet owners, the loss is very tough.
The doctors at the VCA in W Los Angeles offered to do an autopsy (for $600.00) which I decided wouldn't bring my best friend back.
While I was in the waiting room I was reading about encephalitis - and thought that might be the cause of his death. From what I read online about the disease, the symptoms see to correlate.
The neurologist stated she did not know if that was the case or not. She did state that his brain was not functioning properly.
I was reading on your website about aneurysms in dogs and one of the causes is fungal infection. I was thinking that perhaps I waited too long, when he first started scratching himself (he had red spots on his skin toward his tail) before seeking medical help and that may have been the cause of his death. When the vet examined him on 7/7/ he squeezed the portion of his back near the tail bone and tha caused him to yelp in paid. Bear in mind, that by 7/7 he had stopped itching and the hair had grown back.
The reason for this long note - I want to make sure - to the best of my ability - that I take care of my next rescue dog (my dog that passed today was a rescue dog) and be cognizant of symptoms that are affecting his health.
Your insight is most appreicated
Add a comment to Dexter's experience
Was this experience helpful?
My seemingly healthy dog Blue passed away suddenly 2 days ago. He was fine the morning of his death and then about 5:10 pm I go to feed him before I leave for work like I always do and he was laying there stiff with his legs straight as a board like something happened to him suddenly. I thought he was healthy and happy. He was barking like normal and hyper. I couldn't bear to have him cut open and examined so I just buried him that day. I'm so heartbroken and devastated. This dog was my heart and soul and I raised him myself from a 7 week old puppy. I'm so confused. I don't know what I done wrong. He was my world. I didn't always have the time I wanted to spend with him but I loved him more than anything and I love him still even though he's gone
My sister's dog just got nutured and this morning he was acting weird then all of a sudden blood was coming out of his mouth and he was dead could it have been from an aneurysm or something else. Could the vet giving him too much to put him under for surgery have something to do with it.
I'm not sure why this may have happened. He was acting very normal that morning and was dead that evening. He was healthy as far as I knew. I take my dogs to the vet if they show signs of being sick but he showed 0 signs of distress or sickness
Add a comment to Blue's experience
Was this experience helpful?
Last week, my puppy who had just turned one year old the day before died suddenly. My sisters, brother and I took her for a walk around 8:45, and returned her to our yard at 9:15. We left her outside in the yard, like we always do (we where at our lake house) and came back 20-30 minutes later to find her dead against the fence. She was acting perfectly normal all day, even on the walk she was crazy and hyper as she normally was. When we found her, she was already stiff, and her tounge was black, as where her eyes. She was bit by nothing, and showed no signs of peril before her death. The next day, I checked the yard and found a large spot stained deep red, like tar. It had already rained, yet I still found wet blood on my hand. There was a spot that she must have thrown up (it was at least a pint) a few drops that look like she had staggered to the fence where we found her later. She had no blood on her when we found her. The vet told us that it was either poisoning or a burst artery, but she was around no poisoning at all. Even a week later, we are still questioning how such a healthy, spunky puppy went so quickly. Any suggestions on what the cause was? We have done hours of research and have found realtivley nothing similar to what happened to her.
Condolences on the sudden loss of Callie at such a young age, it is always heart breaking under these circumstances. Without carrying out a full necropsy, we cannot say for sure the cause of death; in dogs Callie’s age, sudden death is usually attributable to poisoning (could have been picked up at any time during the walk) or internal bleeding from an aneurysm or similar defect. Some dogs, like humans are born with defects which act like time bombs which may rupture at anytime, especially after an increase in activity which causes an increase in blood pressure. For an in depth analysis, a necropsy would shed light on your questions. Regards Dr Callum Turner DVM
My 7 year old girl was playing in the yard. She jumped up as if in pain and collapsed. I’m sure it was an aneurysm. I ran to her and we started CPR. I even got animal control and a police escort to the vet while doing CPR. She was immediately intubated and got epi. Nothing they could do. I miss her terribly. 💔
Yesterday, I came back home and my 5 year old husky was particularly pleased to see me, rolling all over to get herself scratched an caressed everywhere. That is always such a tender and precious moment between us too. One hour later, I look for her in order to play with her. She loved to be chased and when I tell her that I'm going to eat her raw, she goes crazy. Always. In the excitement, she slipped on her bum and couldn't stand up again. The next second she was laying on the floor and all of her paws were tensed and shaking. She died in my arms and I am blessed that I was there when it happened. I like to think that I calmed her when I told her how good she was to me. She was not even 5 years old and full of life. I believe the cause was a rupture of aneurysm.
Add a comment to Callie's experience
Was this experience helpful?
my dog was 14 year old maltese she went to the vet because it seemed she was in pain she had had a slight touch of diarrohea she was given scourban by the vet after the second does for some reason she started screaming like she was in pain i put her down to go to the toilet or get a drink she anted neither the screaming continued i took her to the vets they said her temp was normal sh ehad no signs of abdominaldiscomfort they could not find anything wrong. took her home later that night took her back theygave her paim med ir didnt really work took her to anothervet theydid blood tests theysaid her temp and everything wwas normal theygave her pain meds she wasnt eating eventually got het to eat a little baby custard nearly four days later she woke up as usual ran to the end of thebed then ran back looke dshe was going to be sick i picked her up to lift her off she collapsed on her side couldnt stand up her body as stiff hen i picked her up sh elet out a terrible scream her head went to one side she a sdrooling from her mouth her eyes were fixed her body stiff thenshe ent floppy unconscious, i thought she had died i put her in a pen hen i came back shea sbreathing strangley and bleeding either from the nose or mouth i got her to the vets immediatelythey did nothing theylet her die . i do not kno hat happend am looking for a anser
Condolences on your loss, it is normal to want to understand the reason for a loved one passing; but without carrying out a post mortem, we cannot know for sure. Usually sudden deaths or short term illnesses which lead to death are caused by heart conditions (dilated cardiomyopathy for example), the condition may have been with Honey all her life and only manifested itself recently. Other causes like poisoning may have been a cause, but again unless a post mortem is performed we cannot be sure. Regards Dr Callum Turner DVM
Add a comment to honey's experience
Was this experience helpful? | 7,777 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Early Cayuga County History
Cayuga County, New York
Situated in the heart of the “Finger Lake country,” about equidistant from Albany and Buffalo, Cayuga County is one of the longest and narrowest of the civil divisions of New York. It possesses, possibly, the widest variety of climate and the greatest variety of productions, both agricultural and manufactured, in the State. The north and south dimension is 55 miles; reaching down from Lake Ontario into the “Finger Lakes”; its width only averages about 14 miles; the area being 760 square miles. The land has a general slope from south to north, making for good drainage and frost protection.
The many large lakes, either located within its borders or on the boundaries, add to these advantages. The surface of the county is, as a rule, sufficiently level to permit of easy cultivation, and fertile enough to have attracted farmers since the very early days. The Seneca River is the principal stream, receiving, as it does, the waters that drain into the several lakes. With its tributaries, Owasco, Cold Spring, Cayuga, Crane and Bread creeks, it forms many water powers, many of which have been utilized. Geologically, there are few minerals of value, the only ones being mined, or quarried today are limestones and gypsum. Building stone and clays are the only other mineral products used to any extent. Agriculture is the main vocation of Cayuga, it still being what is called a rural county. But the increase in the number of factories, and the growing populations of the villages at the expense of the farms must not be overlooked.
Cayuga County was formed from Onondaga March 8, 1799. The first general division of the State into townships took place in 1789, and the towns of Aurelius and Milton were set up on January 27 of this year, being taken from Batavia. The title to the territory owned by the Holland Company in the present county was brought in February 25, 1789, and was being mapped or surveyed. When Cayuga was erected ten years later it contained of these surveyed townships, Aurelius, Victor, Milton, Scipio, and Sempronius; all names sprinkled out of the “Classical pepper pot” of Surveyor-General De Witt.
The first settlement in the present county was made in 1878 by Roswell Franklin at Aurora, but the subsequent influx of emigrants was rapid and great, for in 1800 there were more than 15,000 people in the new county. New York had provided bounty lands for 88 battalions of’ its Colonial soldiery, but these tracts lay in a part of the State which did not appeal to the owners, so they were for the greater part sold, the soldiers in question moving to the lake country, of which the returning army of Sullivan gave such glowing reports. The Onondaga military tract was one of the later soldier provisions and included Cayuga. In the meantime, the lands Iying to the west of the military tract had been sold to individuals, who offered inducements to prospective settlers. Only the difficulty of cutting the way through trackless forests stood in the way of the rapid colonization of the favored lakes district, but even this did not hold back the stream of pioneers which flowed into Cayuga.
The forming of the county in 1799 became necessary because the Cayuga section was outgrowing the mother county, or rather that part of it in which the courts were held. The population of Onondaga after the division was less than the part separated. There was, of course, a great race by the villages for the honor of being the county seat. None had been named, and for several years the first settlement, Aurora, centrally located, held the courts. But in 1804 a law was passed reducing the county to nearly its present size, and with the law was a provision for the establishing of Sherwood’s Corners as the shiretown. This latter provision met with great objection, since the hamlet was off the main lines of travel and too much to one side of the county. Although seven hamlets strove for the prize which the next Legislature awarded, it was Hardenburgh’s Corners that came out in the lead, and which was made the county seat in June of 1805. | <urn:uuid:cb6d8adc-9ab3-408e-9aa3-91744a6b3547> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://purehistory.org/early-cayuga-county-history/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00093.warc.gz | en | 0.982631 | 902 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.4729970395565033,
-0.31892484426498413,
0.42615628242492676,
0.3220844268798828,
0.029841963201761246,
-0.3589950203895569,
0.2658424973487854,
-0.03268291801214218,
-0.25734376907348633,
-0.20550501346588135,
-0.3729712963104248,
0.041837453842163086,
-0.08186949789524078,
0.6977107524... | 4 | Early Cayuga County History
Cayuga County, New York
Situated in the heart of the “Finger Lake country,” about equidistant from Albany and Buffalo, Cayuga County is one of the longest and narrowest of the civil divisions of New York. It possesses, possibly, the widest variety of climate and the greatest variety of productions, both agricultural and manufactured, in the State. The north and south dimension is 55 miles; reaching down from Lake Ontario into the “Finger Lakes”; its width only averages about 14 miles; the area being 760 square miles. The land has a general slope from south to north, making for good drainage and frost protection.
The many large lakes, either located within its borders or on the boundaries, add to these advantages. The surface of the county is, as a rule, sufficiently level to permit of easy cultivation, and fertile enough to have attracted farmers since the very early days. The Seneca River is the principal stream, receiving, as it does, the waters that drain into the several lakes. With its tributaries, Owasco, Cold Spring, Cayuga, Crane and Bread creeks, it forms many water powers, many of which have been utilized. Geologically, there are few minerals of value, the only ones being mined, or quarried today are limestones and gypsum. Building stone and clays are the only other mineral products used to any extent. Agriculture is the main vocation of Cayuga, it still being what is called a rural county. But the increase in the number of factories, and the growing populations of the villages at the expense of the farms must not be overlooked.
Cayuga County was formed from Onondaga March 8, 1799. The first general division of the State into townships took place in 1789, and the towns of Aurelius and Milton were set up on January 27 of this year, being taken from Batavia. The title to the territory owned by the Holland Company in the present county was brought in February 25, 1789, and was being mapped or surveyed. When Cayuga was erected ten years later it contained of these surveyed townships, Aurelius, Victor, Milton, Scipio, and Sempronius; all names sprinkled out of the “Classical pepper pot” of Surveyor-General De Witt.
The first settlement in the present county was made in 1878 by Roswell Franklin at Aurora, but the subsequent influx of emigrants was rapid and great, for in 1800 there were more than 15,000 people in the new county. New York had provided bounty lands for 88 battalions of’ its Colonial soldiery, but these tracts lay in a part of the State which did not appeal to the owners, so they were for the greater part sold, the soldiers in question moving to the lake country, of which the returning army of Sullivan gave such glowing reports. The Onondaga military tract was one of the later soldier provisions and included Cayuga. In the meantime, the lands Iying to the west of the military tract had been sold to individuals, who offered inducements to prospective settlers. Only the difficulty of cutting the way through trackless forests stood in the way of the rapid colonization of the favored lakes district, but even this did not hold back the stream of pioneers which flowed into Cayuga.
The forming of the county in 1799 became necessary because the Cayuga section was outgrowing the mother county, or rather that part of it in which the courts were held. The population of Onondaga after the division was less than the part separated. There was, of course, a great race by the villages for the honor of being the county seat. None had been named, and for several years the first settlement, Aurora, centrally located, held the courts. But in 1804 a law was passed reducing the county to nearly its present size, and with the law was a provision for the establishing of Sherwood’s Corners as the shiretown. This latter provision met with great objection, since the hamlet was off the main lines of travel and too much to one side of the county. Although seven hamlets strove for the prize which the next Legislature awarded, it was Hardenburgh’s Corners that came out in the lead, and which was made the county seat in June of 1805. | 929 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Bessie Coleman: The First Black Female Pilot*
Bessie Coleman was an American civil aviator, the first female pilot of African American descent, and the first person of African American descent to have an international pilot license. She was born in 1892 in Texas, the tenth of thirteen children, and in school showed herself to be a lover of reading and mathematics. She enrolled in what is now Langston College in Oklahoma, but was forced to return home due to lack of funds. At 23, she moved to Chicago, where she heard stories from returning World War I pilots about flying during the war. Due to her race and gender, however, despite her interest in aviation, no American flight school or aviator would train her.
Determined to become an aviator, Bessie went to France in 1920 and, a year later, earned her aviation license from the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, becoming the first American of any gender to receive a license from that organization. She trained as a “barnstorming” stunt flier in order to make a living. Known as “Queen Bess,” she was well-known for her daredevil maneuvers, though her flamboyant style was often criticized by the press. Though offered a role in a film, when she learned that her first scene would show her in tattered clothes with a walking stick and pack, she walked off set rather than perpetuate the derogatory image of African Americans. In 1926, in preparation for an air show, her plane failed to pull out of a dive and began to spin, causing Bessie to be thrown from the plane, 2,000 feet above the ground, killing her instantly. She was 34 years old. | <urn:uuid:ef043c15-73cb-4b08-8dad-3ed1fd8115a4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://hwaairfan.wordpress.com/2014/09/18/bessie-coleman-the-first-black-female-pilot/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00325.warc.gz | en | 0.982633 | 360 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
0.21845419704914093,
0.0427292101085186,
-0.06432407349348068,
0.0001548409491078928,
-0.43247681856155396,
0.630817174911499,
0.2777967154979706,
0.14204949140548706,
0.06086217239499092,
-0.0010976074263453484,
-0.3031863570213318,
-0.08656083047389984,
-0.19165357947349548,
0.1393655687... | 2 | Bessie Coleman: The First Black Female Pilot*
Bessie Coleman was an American civil aviator, the first female pilot of African American descent, and the first person of African American descent to have an international pilot license. She was born in 1892 in Texas, the tenth of thirteen children, and in school showed herself to be a lover of reading and mathematics. She enrolled in what is now Langston College in Oklahoma, but was forced to return home due to lack of funds. At 23, she moved to Chicago, where she heard stories from returning World War I pilots about flying during the war. Due to her race and gender, however, despite her interest in aviation, no American flight school or aviator would train her.
Determined to become an aviator, Bessie went to France in 1920 and, a year later, earned her aviation license from the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, becoming the first American of any gender to receive a license from that organization. She trained as a “barnstorming” stunt flier in order to make a living. Known as “Queen Bess,” she was well-known for her daredevil maneuvers, though her flamboyant style was often criticized by the press. Though offered a role in a film, when she learned that her first scene would show her in tattered clothes with a walking stick and pack, she walked off set rather than perpetuate the derogatory image of African Americans. In 1926, in preparation for an air show, her plane failed to pull out of a dive and began to spin, causing Bessie to be thrown from the plane, 2,000 feet above the ground, killing her instantly. She was 34 years old. | 369 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the novel To kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Lee introduces Atticus Finch as a as a loving and caring father, a supportive keeper of the law, a man of hidden talents, and a man of wisdom. Atticus has a mind of his own, and is unusual in both qualities and social status. As a man of honesty and wisdom, he is well respected throughout the city of Maycomb. Father to Jem and Scout, Atticus plays the heroic figure in the novel. He is a rather considerate, kind, and most understanding character. As a single parent he tries his best to fulfill his duties as a father to Jem and Scout by sharing his beliefs and values with them. Although he often doubts himself and thinks he is a complete failure as a parent, it’s actually the opposite. To be honest, he is more than a parent to Jem and Scout. Other than being a good father, Atticus plays a role as their teacher, their protector, and their friend. One of Atticus’s roles as a father is being a teacher to Jem and Scout. He shares a unique relationship with them. Most children call their father “father.” On the other hand, when it comes to Jem and Scout, it’s a different story. Rather than calling Atticus father, they call him by his first name, “Atticus.” logically, this is all part of Atticus’ morals for Jem and Scout. Calling him by his first name builds up equality between them. It sets them on the same level as Atticus. Basically, if they are on the same level as he, they will acknowledge that he is expecting maturity from them. Atticus portrays himself as a role model for his children. He teaches them about tolerance. Instead of telling his children to act a certain way, he disciplines them by setting examples for them from which they can learn. Many of those examples are expressed in the story; for instance the character Tom Robinson who has been accused of rape by a white woman. Although he is innocent of the crime, because of the fact that he is a black man, he is considered guilty. In addition, when it comes to the Tom Robinson’s conflict, Atticus did not just jump to conclusions like the others did by believing that Tom Robinson is guilty. As a lawyer, after analyzing the conflict, he came to the conclusion that Tom Robinson is an innocent man, but he will not be spared by the jury because of racism. Even though it did not look like Atticus’ intention from the beginning by handling this case, other than trying to free Tom Robinson from his accusation, he is also setting examples for his children about tolerance. In addition, he wants his children to be able to live a life in which they can accept anyone in life for who they are regardless of race or religion. For instance, in chapter 9 Atticus’ made a statement regarding his children and racism. “Right. But do you think I could face my children otherwise? You know what’s going to happen as well as I do jack, and I hope and pray I can get Jem and scout through it without bitterness, and most of all, without catching Maycomb usual disease. Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand…I just hope that Jem and Scout come to me for their answers instead of listening to the town. I hope they trust me enough.” Compared to the parents in the town of Maycomb, Atticus differs when it comes to parenthood. Unlike the other parents he does not limit his children. He accepts them for who they are; Scout, for instance, is a carefree tomboy who does whatever she wishes. Growing up during the time of the Great Depression in early 1930’s, girls were expected to dress a certain way. They were not supposed to show much skin and were expected to wear dresses only. Little do these standards set by society exist in Scout’s world. Doing boys’ activities were Scout’s everyday life; nether less she fearless and even pick a fight with a boy. Scout’s characteristics would be completely absurd to those in the town of maycomb; which pretty much explains why Aunt Alexandra was not too fond with scout wearing pants other than a dress. “Aunt Alexandra was fanatical on the subject of my attire . I could not possible hope to be a lady if I wore breeches; when I said I could do nothing in a dress, she said I wasn’t supposed to be doing things that required pants. Aunt Alexandra’s vision of my deportment involved playing with small stoves, tea sets, and wearing the Add-A Pearl necklace she gave me when I was born; furthermore, I should be a ray of sunshine in my fathers lonely life. I suggested that one could be a ray of sunshine in pants just as well, but Aunty said that one had to behave like a sunbeam, that I was born good but had grown progressively worse every year.” In other words when it comes to Atticus’ it does not bother him at all and is very comfortable with the way scout portrays herself. On the contrary, although Atticus does not limit his children much, he still has a strict side. Letting his children explore and go on adventures day after day during the hot summer vacation with Dill is not much of a burden to him. On the other hand, it did not please him at all when his children have the nerve to disturbed the Radley’s peace. Atticus is quite strict, but fair.
In closing, Atticus shows deep understanding of human nature towards others regardless of their status. He is a man of justice who wants to keep the law together and do the right thing. He made several comments in the novel expressing his beliefs. For example, “If you just learn a single trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view. Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” Atticus shows these traits not just in special cases but in everyday life. | <urn:uuid:5f8707e4-9ef7-4d2c-945c-b58b54cba686> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.studymode.com/essays/Characterization-Of-Atticus-Finch-63670651.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00498.warc.gz | en | 0.986871 | 1,291 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
0.11364094913005829,
0.44623029232025146,
-0.02176269143819809,
-0.254116952419281,
0.08455512672662735,
-0.012327538803219795,
0.6822647452354431,
0.16799861192703247,
-0.03532011806964874,
-0.2765563130378723,
0.004904009401798248,
-0.1775534301996231,
-0.35414379835128784,
0.08820537477... | 1 | In the novel To kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, Lee introduces Atticus Finch as a as a loving and caring father, a supportive keeper of the law, a man of hidden talents, and a man of wisdom. Atticus has a mind of his own, and is unusual in both qualities and social status. As a man of honesty and wisdom, he is well respected throughout the city of Maycomb. Father to Jem and Scout, Atticus plays the heroic figure in the novel. He is a rather considerate, kind, and most understanding character. As a single parent he tries his best to fulfill his duties as a father to Jem and Scout by sharing his beliefs and values with them. Although he often doubts himself and thinks he is a complete failure as a parent, it’s actually the opposite. To be honest, he is more than a parent to Jem and Scout. Other than being a good father, Atticus plays a role as their teacher, their protector, and their friend. One of Atticus’s roles as a father is being a teacher to Jem and Scout. He shares a unique relationship with them. Most children call their father “father.” On the other hand, when it comes to Jem and Scout, it’s a different story. Rather than calling Atticus father, they call him by his first name, “Atticus.” logically, this is all part of Atticus’ morals for Jem and Scout. Calling him by his first name builds up equality between them. It sets them on the same level as Atticus. Basically, if they are on the same level as he, they will acknowledge that he is expecting maturity from them. Atticus portrays himself as a role model for his children. He teaches them about tolerance. Instead of telling his children to act a certain way, he disciplines them by setting examples for them from which they can learn. Many of those examples are expressed in the story; for instance the character Tom Robinson who has been accused of rape by a white woman. Although he is innocent of the crime, because of the fact that he is a black man, he is considered guilty. In addition, when it comes to the Tom Robinson’s conflict, Atticus did not just jump to conclusions like the others did by believing that Tom Robinson is guilty. As a lawyer, after analyzing the conflict, he came to the conclusion that Tom Robinson is an innocent man, but he will not be spared by the jury because of racism. Even though it did not look like Atticus’ intention from the beginning by handling this case, other than trying to free Tom Robinson from his accusation, he is also setting examples for his children about tolerance. In addition, he wants his children to be able to live a life in which they can accept anyone in life for who they are regardless of race or religion. For instance, in chapter 9 Atticus’ made a statement regarding his children and racism. “Right. But do you think I could face my children otherwise? You know what’s going to happen as well as I do jack, and I hope and pray I can get Jem and scout through it without bitterness, and most of all, without catching Maycomb usual disease. Why reasonable people go stark raving mad when anything involving a Negro comes up, is something I don’t pretend to understand…I just hope that Jem and Scout come to me for their answers instead of listening to the town. I hope they trust me enough.” Compared to the parents in the town of Maycomb, Atticus differs when it comes to parenthood. Unlike the other parents he does not limit his children. He accepts them for who they are; Scout, for instance, is a carefree tomboy who does whatever she wishes. Growing up during the time of the Great Depression in early 1930’s, girls were expected to dress a certain way. They were not supposed to show much skin and were expected to wear dresses only. Little do these standards set by society exist in Scout’s world. Doing boys’ activities were Scout’s everyday life; nether less she fearless and even pick a fight with a boy. Scout’s characteristics would be completely absurd to those in the town of maycomb; which pretty much explains why Aunt Alexandra was not too fond with scout wearing pants other than a dress. “Aunt Alexandra was fanatical on the subject of my attire . I could not possible hope to be a lady if I wore breeches; when I said I could do nothing in a dress, she said I wasn’t supposed to be doing things that required pants. Aunt Alexandra’s vision of my deportment involved playing with small stoves, tea sets, and wearing the Add-A Pearl necklace she gave me when I was born; furthermore, I should be a ray of sunshine in my fathers lonely life. I suggested that one could be a ray of sunshine in pants just as well, but Aunty said that one had to behave like a sunbeam, that I was born good but had grown progressively worse every year.” In other words when it comes to Atticus’ it does not bother him at all and is very comfortable with the way scout portrays herself. On the contrary, although Atticus does not limit his children much, he still has a strict side. Letting his children explore and go on adventures day after day during the hot summer vacation with Dill is not much of a burden to him. On the other hand, it did not please him at all when his children have the nerve to disturbed the Radley’s peace. Atticus is quite strict, but fair.
In closing, Atticus shows deep understanding of human nature towards others regardless of their status. He is a man of justice who wants to keep the law together and do the right thing. He made several comments in the novel expressing his beliefs. For example, “If you just learn a single trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view. Until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.” Atticus shows these traits not just in special cases but in everyday life. | 1,256 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During the heyday of the American fur trappers in the west, they openly and knowingly violated the law of the United States that forbade such activity. Several American officials and representatives of the Federal Government indicated that they understood trapping and hunting on Indian lands was contrary to the law of the land. They described the devastating effects of fur trapping by whites: how it undermined other policies of the United States relating to Native Americans. Some tribes in the first third of the nineteenth century were characterized as warring, insensate savages, including the Arikara tribe and the Blackfeet. The hostility of these tribes was not senseless: they had good reasons to believe that representatives of the United States were their enemies. They entered directly into hostile actions when opportunities arose, of course, but in most cases they believed that they were fighting for their very survival. In general, history has proved them to have been correct in this assessment. | <urn:uuid:4b0a752c-3d4d-4844-9cfa-73f2eabe4fd8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://books.apple.com/ca/book/to-trade-or-to-trap/id459141304 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00316.warc.gz | en | 0.980984 | 185 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.22949472069740295,
0.20071174204349518,
0.29614540934562683,
-0.01566370204091072,
0.0737835243344307,
-0.14125719666481018,
0.3546780049800873,
-0.022368861362338066,
-0.3287438750267029,
0.1873376965522766,
0.05723809078335762,
-0.17524561285972595,
0.15932120382785797,
0.392949312925... | 1 | During the heyday of the American fur trappers in the west, they openly and knowingly violated the law of the United States that forbade such activity. Several American officials and representatives of the Federal Government indicated that they understood trapping and hunting on Indian lands was contrary to the law of the land. They described the devastating effects of fur trapping by whites: how it undermined other policies of the United States relating to Native Americans. Some tribes in the first third of the nineteenth century were characterized as warring, insensate savages, including the Arikara tribe and the Blackfeet. The hostility of these tribes was not senseless: they had good reasons to believe that representatives of the United States were their enemies. They entered directly into hostile actions when opportunities arose, of course, but in most cases they believed that they were fighting for their very survival. In general, history has proved them to have been correct in this assessment. | 187 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Nazi leader was called “fuhrer”. Fuhrer in Germany simply means “leader” or “guide”. Adolf Hitler, who was a German politician and the leader of the Nazi party, was called fuhrer and he claimed it as his personal title. Adolf Hitler was mostly addressed as der Fuhrer which means “the leader”. He was officially given the title following his function as the head of the Nazi party.
Due to the association of this word to Adolf Hitler has made this word to be isolated and has made it a negative connotation. The tittle “Germanischer Fuhrer” (Germanic Fuhrer) was adopted by Adolf Hitler on the 23rd of June, 1941 in addition to his former tittle as Fuhrer. Hope you find this information very helpful. | <urn:uuid:3b69b467-cbeb-4288-83a5-8b8b843cd26f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.proprofs.com/discuss/q/622605/what-was-the-nazi-leader-called | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00330.warc.gz | en | 0.991648 | 177 | 3.796875 | 4 | [
-0.4025673270225525,
0.47270098328590393,
-0.21038661897182465,
0.028674818575382233,
-0.018680736422538757,
0.0014729704707860947,
0.8809154033660889,
-0.020804978907108307,
-0.11707156896591187,
-0.2515915334224701,
0.49609625339508057,
-0.44432276487350464,
-0.13539259135723114,
-0.0668... | 1 | The Nazi leader was called “fuhrer”. Fuhrer in Germany simply means “leader” or “guide”. Adolf Hitler, who was a German politician and the leader of the Nazi party, was called fuhrer and he claimed it as his personal title. Adolf Hitler was mostly addressed as der Fuhrer which means “the leader”. He was officially given the title following his function as the head of the Nazi party.
Due to the association of this word to Adolf Hitler has made this word to be isolated and has made it a negative connotation. The tittle “Germanischer Fuhrer” (Germanic Fuhrer) was adopted by Adolf Hitler on the 23rd of June, 1941 in addition to his former tittle as Fuhrer. Hope you find this information very helpful. | 169 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The French Maginot Line (in use from 1935 to 1940) from World War II has come to stand as one of the great symbols of shortsightedness, Myopic Architecture, stupidity, ostrich-like response to threat, and just general fail. The French built the most advanced system of fortifications that the world had ever seen — and, in the popular imagination, just sat there in their fortifications while the Germans did a huge Dungeon Bypass by invading indirectly through Belgium.
The above story is, however, an extremely pervasive case of Artistic License History. In real fact, the goals of the Maginot Line upon its construction (1930) were this:
- Force the Germans not to attack there. This would hopefully lead to Germany invading Belgium in order to actually get at France, which would bring Belgium into the war on France's side. In the long term this would enable an invasion of Germany through the flatter and more favourable terrain of northern Belgium, the terrain and infrastructure of the Franco-German border (hilly and poor, respectively) being unsuited to offensive incursions into Germany anyway. The French very much preferred to fight the Germans in Belgium and Germany, and not France.
- Free up soldiers for the real fight up in Belgium. France really needed this: she had lost so many younger men to World War I and the Spanish Flu that there was gaping hole in the manpower pool where the forty-something year-old men were supposed to be note . Moreover another hole in the manpower pool was looming, the number of men turning 18 in the years 1932-7 being just half that of previous and subsequent years. Germany, Britain, and Italy also had these gaps but France's were (proportionally) bigger. Thus, she badly needed economy of manpower.
- Prop up domestic manufacturing at a time of low demand.
So the French expected that the Germans would invade France in an attempt to defeat her and so break the Franco-British blockade which would be crippling the German economy even worse than in World War I, and that they would do so by bypassing the Maginot Line through Belgium. The Germans knew this too, they both knew that the other side knew, and this is what the Germans did, to nobody's surprise. So what happened? Why did the French lose so badly?
Well, for the purpose of this analysis, you can divide Belgium into two regions:
- The northern plains, where the majority of the population lives. This is excellent tank country and has two major double-tracked railway lines, several single-tracked lines, and very good roads an area that most, though not all, of Germany's forces could be supplied through without too much trouble. In World War I this is where the August 1914 German offensive had entered France from.
- The Ardennes Forest, south of the northern plains and north of the Maginot Line. The Ardennes isn't just a forest: it's a rugged, hilly, wooded country with a couple of single-tracked railway lines and a few bad roads. This is not good tank country, and attacking through there with just half of Germany's forces would require every motor vehicle in Germany to have the slightest chance of keeping the advance supplied. In World War I the French attempted to invade Germany through here (to cut off the German force that they anticipated would soon invade northern Belgium) and failed miserably.
The French high command expected that the Germans would attack through the northern Belgian plains, because this is the non-insane plan - and the one that worked Last Time. They were also aware that the Germans were really good at tank-supported direct artillery attacks upon tactical strongpoints. Given just how strong the French artillery force was, to overcome it they would need the advantage of relatively flat terrain - so they'd have to deploy their tanks in the north.
There was a chance the Germans might count on the French assuming this and so deploy their tank forces in the Ardennes instead, but the temporary surprise this maneuver might cause would be more than offset by the difficulty of breaking through the artillery-heavy French lines and the sheer logistical impossibility of sustaining such an offensive. Sustaining a major offensive through the Ardennes by the usual combination of rail and horse transport wasn't possible by a long shot. The German Army's horrific logistic troubles supplying troops through the region in World War One, even given lower average demand for ammunition relative to post-1916 military forces, was proof enough of that note .
So what did the Germans do in the Battle of France? They launched a feint attack up in the northern plains of Belgium and Holland to distract the French and play to their expectations, and in the meantime they secretly sent their main force through the Ardennes. French mechanized forces established a weak series of outposts across both areas, the bulk of Franco-British infantry forces were moved by rail to the northern plains, and a weak follow-on infantry force was later moved to the Ardennes. So when the German forces actually encountered the French mechanized forces in the Ardennes, they outnumbered them by something like 20:1. And once they broke through them, the French infantry force in the area was also outnumbered by 10:1. And once they broke through them, there were no more prepared defensive outposts and the only troops in their way were ones hastily railed in to stop them. Who were also outnumbered.
The German mobile forces trapped about half the entire Allied forces in Belgium, where they could not expect to receive much ammunition from the depots in France for at least several days. The Germans had no intention of letting them receive it, and moved to separate the Allied troops from the ports and to force individual pockets of troops to run out of ammo and surrender. The Allies' only hope at that point would have been to use some reserves to counterattack the German spearhead, but they had sent too much of their force into northern Belgium. The rail infrastructure did not allow them to muster a sufficiently large force in the little time they had, not least because much of their force had moved away from railway stations to occupy key positions in the defense of the rivers.
While few Allied commanders were actually surprised or fazed by this development, the French army as an institution (with several thousand managers [commanders] who needed advanced notice to work out and execute plans if you didn't want utter chaos) was unable to react in a timely and sufficiently organised fashion. So the Germans managed to cut the supply lines to the best French and British units, and defeat them dramatically and quickly.
One curious fact was that the Germans originally planned to do exactly what the French expected: attack through northern Belgium. However, neither Hitler nor any of the generals was enthusiastic about this plan; in addition, at one point, the Belgians captured a German officer who had a copy of a draft of this plan. Legendary German General Erich von Manstein (who understood logistics), with the help of the somewhat-back-stabb-y Blood Knight Heinz Guderian (who did not, but inspired Manstein to greater boldness in the planning), came up with this Ardennes attack plan. Chief of the German General Staff General "a strong military leader with great powers of motivation is the most important factor for success" Halder, disliked this idea at first, but Hitler had independently suggested something similar early on and Halder was partly browbeaten and partly personally overawed by Hitler into accepting the Ardennes plan over the northern plains plan.
Most of the other German generals thought this was nuts, not because of the constricted supply lines this would entail because the logistics services were never consulted or even mentioned when planning campaigns/operations - they were just expected to fulfill any and all demands placed upon themnote Rather, they wanted to fight the French on the open plains and didn't think the hills of the Ardennes were good for this because they would give the French a defensive advantage. Manstein and Guderian insisted that most of the fighting would in fact take place on the plains and not in the hills (though they'd have to go through the hills first and there'd be a fair bit of fighting there first), but their contemporaries thought this was overly optimistic and potentially disastrous.
The Ardennes plan was indeed very risky; if the Allies had clued up earlier about it, the Germans wouldn't have just suffered a terrible defeat and gone on to lose the war, but they would have looked incredibly stupid. People would be asking today how could the Germans have been so stupid to think that they could successfully launch a major mechanized attack through such terrible terrain and bad roads. And in fact, the German attack force's movement through the Ardennes was a logistical nightmare; it caused the largest traffic jam the world had ever seen to that date, and for a few days the Germans would have been sitting ducks to Allied air attacks. General Halder chose it because, in spite of the risk, it offered a chance of victory, whereas they knew that the northern Belgian attack didn't. (It's also worth mentioning that Halder disagreed with the war against France and Britain, had been plotting against Hitler, and would have probably preferred a quick loss against the Allies than a protracted losing war against them.)
But, in an excellent demonstration of the old maxim "The winning army is the one that makes the fewest mistakes," the Allies didn't figure it out in time. The historical record shows that they received many clues of the true German plan, yet either they failed to connect the dots or they dismissed them as misinformation. For example, in the heat of the first couple of days, the French Generalissimo Gamelin was told about a German force moving through in the Ardennes, and he concluded that this was a secondary attack meant to distract him from the main attack up north. The opposite from what was happening! (Which, to be fair, was the original German plan)
A complicating factor that affected the French and British strategy was the loss of the Belgian fortress of Eben Emael. If attacking across the Franco-German border would have been extraordinarily difficult, a direct assault on Eben Emael was insane. It was, at the time, the toughest nut in the world to crack, and its position was designed to further restrict German movement, designed to serve as an anchor for the planned Franco-British defensive position. The only problem was that no one considered the possibility that anyone would be crazy enough to try and land a small force of glider troops on top of the fortress. Which, of course, the Germans did, which allowed them to capture the fortress, forcing the British and French to scramble to reform a new defensive line. These glider troops (they didn't use parachutes) used an honest-to-God secret weapon, the shaped charge explosive, to blow up the artillery turrets. The action was so quick and swift that only a few men died on both sides.
Soon after the breakthrough, the entire British Expeditionary Force and the majority of the French Army were thus trapped near the French town of Dunkirk. With nowhere else to run, the British gathered everything that could float and rescued the near-entirety of the BEF and a good number of French troops. The Germans, meanwhile, were halted as Luftwaffe Commander-in-Chief Göring persuaded Hitler that his planes could annihilate the remaining Allied forces. This did not happen due to poor weather making aerial attacks difficult, and since then, the German Army began to distrust the Luftwaffe. Despite this, the Allied defeat was total. Britain was ejected from the continent and, having left nearly all their equipment and heavy arms at Dunkirk, unable to redeploy their forces, giving the Germans free reign to maneuver in Western Europe. Less than ten days later, General Erwin Rommel and his 7th Panzer Division, who moved so quickly even Berlin lost track of them during the campaign, sent a message to army headquarters as they stood overlooking the English Channel: "Am at coast." The Wehrmacht then turned south to capture Paris, now an open city, before they were finally halted on June 22, when an armistice was signed between Germany and France.
Alert readers will notice that we haven't said a word about the Maginot Line for many paragraphs at this point. So let's get back to that. Was the Maginot Line a stupid idea that completely failed? No, it wasn't; it was a reasonable idea that did exactly what it was intended to do (force the Germans to attack through Belgium; free up soldiers to counter that attack). Was it a good idea? That is a much harder question. It is possible that the French would have done better if they'd spent more of their resources on other things like better mechanized forcesnote , better intelligence analysis, better training, etc.; but this doesn't mean necessarily that they shouldn't have built a Maginot Line, but rather that they could have spent less on itnote , and more on other things. However, it's important to remember that, historically, even with the strategic choices they made the Allies had serious chances of winning the Battle of France in the early days, and of not losing so badly even after the initial surprise. They also arguably could have won the war if they'd invaded Germany in 1939 instead of waiting for the Germans to attack.
So the Maginot Line played an important role in the Fall of France, but not a dominant one.
A final important fact is that the French high command was warned of the dangers posed by Ardennes assault since 1938. In May-June 1938, General André-Gaston Prételat staged a map exercise to determine what would happen if the Germans decide to use tanks to attack through the Ardennes and how long would it take for the Germans to go through the forest and reach the Meuse. He concluded that it would take 60 hours, which is only 3 hours more that what Germany actually pulled off later in 1940. The French high command, especially Gamelin, instead chose to accuse the general of pessimism, bury the exercise result to prevent lower rank panic, and keep insisting that it would take much longer than that so they can easily ignore putting defense in place and count on organizing counterattack instead. You could imagine how different the war could turn out if Prételat's warning was taken seriously.
Fun historical fact: you'd think that, after the Allies were defeated catastrophically by a surprise German attack through the Ardennes, they'd never fall for the same trick again, right? Well, that's only half right: in the Battle of the Bulge, four and a half years later, the Germans managed to trick the Americans and launch a major surprise attack through the Ardennes (under the cover of fog and bad weather which grounded their air-forces), which the Americans considered a quiet region of the front and thus had sent weakened divisions there to recover. However, the Americans were better-armed and more numerous relative to their attackers than the French had been four years earlier and put up a much better fight. More importantly, this Allied commander (General Patton) correctly judged that this would be the main thrust of their offensive and rushed in so many troops (chiefly the US's Third Army) that the Allies soon had the attacking Germans outnumbered and out-gunned. Once their offensive had effectively been halted the Germans quickly withdrew as their positions were exposed and Hitler wanted their mobile formations dispatched to Hungary as quickly as possible so they could try to relieve the Siege of Budapest in Unternehmen Konrad.
Also note: invading through the Ardennes had already been used by the Germans in World War I and went pretty badly for both sides, with the German invasion force running out of food and horses at a ridiculous rate due to the area's poor infrastructure (and the French demolition of said infrastructure as they retreated). | <urn:uuid:c1500c48-fb78-4a6e-842c-5d7fccd321e2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/MaginotLine | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00445.warc.gz | en | 0.983909 | 3,253 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.30671799182891846,
0.22132140398025513,
-0.03487470746040344,
-0.2985032796859741,
0.08840354532003403,
-0.05726146697998047,
0.0819297730922699,
0.6141748428344727,
-0.08694583177566528,
-0.46438953280448914,
0.007463077083230019,
-0.33612048625946045,
0.3544594645500183,
0.13753847777... | 1 | The French Maginot Line (in use from 1935 to 1940) from World War II has come to stand as one of the great symbols of shortsightedness, Myopic Architecture, stupidity, ostrich-like response to threat, and just general fail. The French built the most advanced system of fortifications that the world had ever seen — and, in the popular imagination, just sat there in their fortifications while the Germans did a huge Dungeon Bypass by invading indirectly through Belgium.
The above story is, however, an extremely pervasive case of Artistic License History. In real fact, the goals of the Maginot Line upon its construction (1930) were this:
- Force the Germans not to attack there. This would hopefully lead to Germany invading Belgium in order to actually get at France, which would bring Belgium into the war on France's side. In the long term this would enable an invasion of Germany through the flatter and more favourable terrain of northern Belgium, the terrain and infrastructure of the Franco-German border (hilly and poor, respectively) being unsuited to offensive incursions into Germany anyway. The French very much preferred to fight the Germans in Belgium and Germany, and not France.
- Free up soldiers for the real fight up in Belgium. France really needed this: she had lost so many younger men to World War I and the Spanish Flu that there was gaping hole in the manpower pool where the forty-something year-old men were supposed to be note . Moreover another hole in the manpower pool was looming, the number of men turning 18 in the years 1932-7 being just half that of previous and subsequent years. Germany, Britain, and Italy also had these gaps but France's were (proportionally) bigger. Thus, she badly needed economy of manpower.
- Prop up domestic manufacturing at a time of low demand.
So the French expected that the Germans would invade France in an attempt to defeat her and so break the Franco-British blockade which would be crippling the German economy even worse than in World War I, and that they would do so by bypassing the Maginot Line through Belgium. The Germans knew this too, they both knew that the other side knew, and this is what the Germans did, to nobody's surprise. So what happened? Why did the French lose so badly?
Well, for the purpose of this analysis, you can divide Belgium into two regions:
- The northern plains, where the majority of the population lives. This is excellent tank country and has two major double-tracked railway lines, several single-tracked lines, and very good roads an area that most, though not all, of Germany's forces could be supplied through without too much trouble. In World War I this is where the August 1914 German offensive had entered France from.
- The Ardennes Forest, south of the northern plains and north of the Maginot Line. The Ardennes isn't just a forest: it's a rugged, hilly, wooded country with a couple of single-tracked railway lines and a few bad roads. This is not good tank country, and attacking through there with just half of Germany's forces would require every motor vehicle in Germany to have the slightest chance of keeping the advance supplied. In World War I the French attempted to invade Germany through here (to cut off the German force that they anticipated would soon invade northern Belgium) and failed miserably.
The French high command expected that the Germans would attack through the northern Belgian plains, because this is the non-insane plan - and the one that worked Last Time. They were also aware that the Germans were really good at tank-supported direct artillery attacks upon tactical strongpoints. Given just how strong the French artillery force was, to overcome it they would need the advantage of relatively flat terrain - so they'd have to deploy their tanks in the north.
There was a chance the Germans might count on the French assuming this and so deploy their tank forces in the Ardennes instead, but the temporary surprise this maneuver might cause would be more than offset by the difficulty of breaking through the artillery-heavy French lines and the sheer logistical impossibility of sustaining such an offensive. Sustaining a major offensive through the Ardennes by the usual combination of rail and horse transport wasn't possible by a long shot. The German Army's horrific logistic troubles supplying troops through the region in World War One, even given lower average demand for ammunition relative to post-1916 military forces, was proof enough of that note .
So what did the Germans do in the Battle of France? They launched a feint attack up in the northern plains of Belgium and Holland to distract the French and play to their expectations, and in the meantime they secretly sent their main force through the Ardennes. French mechanized forces established a weak series of outposts across both areas, the bulk of Franco-British infantry forces were moved by rail to the northern plains, and a weak follow-on infantry force was later moved to the Ardennes. So when the German forces actually encountered the French mechanized forces in the Ardennes, they outnumbered them by something like 20:1. And once they broke through them, the French infantry force in the area was also outnumbered by 10:1. And once they broke through them, there were no more prepared defensive outposts and the only troops in their way were ones hastily railed in to stop them. Who were also outnumbered.
The German mobile forces trapped about half the entire Allied forces in Belgium, where they could not expect to receive much ammunition from the depots in France for at least several days. The Germans had no intention of letting them receive it, and moved to separate the Allied troops from the ports and to force individual pockets of troops to run out of ammo and surrender. The Allies' only hope at that point would have been to use some reserves to counterattack the German spearhead, but they had sent too much of their force into northern Belgium. The rail infrastructure did not allow them to muster a sufficiently large force in the little time they had, not least because much of their force had moved away from railway stations to occupy key positions in the defense of the rivers.
While few Allied commanders were actually surprised or fazed by this development, the French army as an institution (with several thousand managers [commanders] who needed advanced notice to work out and execute plans if you didn't want utter chaos) was unable to react in a timely and sufficiently organised fashion. So the Germans managed to cut the supply lines to the best French and British units, and defeat them dramatically and quickly.
One curious fact was that the Germans originally planned to do exactly what the French expected: attack through northern Belgium. However, neither Hitler nor any of the generals was enthusiastic about this plan; in addition, at one point, the Belgians captured a German officer who had a copy of a draft of this plan. Legendary German General Erich von Manstein (who understood logistics), with the help of the somewhat-back-stabb-y Blood Knight Heinz Guderian (who did not, but inspired Manstein to greater boldness in the planning), came up with this Ardennes attack plan. Chief of the German General Staff General "a strong military leader with great powers of motivation is the most important factor for success" Halder, disliked this idea at first, but Hitler had independently suggested something similar early on and Halder was partly browbeaten and partly personally overawed by Hitler into accepting the Ardennes plan over the northern plains plan.
Most of the other German generals thought this was nuts, not because of the constricted supply lines this would entail because the logistics services were never consulted or even mentioned when planning campaigns/operations - they were just expected to fulfill any and all demands placed upon themnote Rather, they wanted to fight the French on the open plains and didn't think the hills of the Ardennes were good for this because they would give the French a defensive advantage. Manstein and Guderian insisted that most of the fighting would in fact take place on the plains and not in the hills (though they'd have to go through the hills first and there'd be a fair bit of fighting there first), but their contemporaries thought this was overly optimistic and potentially disastrous.
The Ardennes plan was indeed very risky; if the Allies had clued up earlier about it, the Germans wouldn't have just suffered a terrible defeat and gone on to lose the war, but they would have looked incredibly stupid. People would be asking today how could the Germans have been so stupid to think that they could successfully launch a major mechanized attack through such terrible terrain and bad roads. And in fact, the German attack force's movement through the Ardennes was a logistical nightmare; it caused the largest traffic jam the world had ever seen to that date, and for a few days the Germans would have been sitting ducks to Allied air attacks. General Halder chose it because, in spite of the risk, it offered a chance of victory, whereas they knew that the northern Belgian attack didn't. (It's also worth mentioning that Halder disagreed with the war against France and Britain, had been plotting against Hitler, and would have probably preferred a quick loss against the Allies than a protracted losing war against them.)
But, in an excellent demonstration of the old maxim "The winning army is the one that makes the fewest mistakes," the Allies didn't figure it out in time. The historical record shows that they received many clues of the true German plan, yet either they failed to connect the dots or they dismissed them as misinformation. For example, in the heat of the first couple of days, the French Generalissimo Gamelin was told about a German force moving through in the Ardennes, and he concluded that this was a secondary attack meant to distract him from the main attack up north. The opposite from what was happening! (Which, to be fair, was the original German plan)
A complicating factor that affected the French and British strategy was the loss of the Belgian fortress of Eben Emael. If attacking across the Franco-German border would have been extraordinarily difficult, a direct assault on Eben Emael was insane. It was, at the time, the toughest nut in the world to crack, and its position was designed to further restrict German movement, designed to serve as an anchor for the planned Franco-British defensive position. The only problem was that no one considered the possibility that anyone would be crazy enough to try and land a small force of glider troops on top of the fortress. Which, of course, the Germans did, which allowed them to capture the fortress, forcing the British and French to scramble to reform a new defensive line. These glider troops (they didn't use parachutes) used an honest-to-God secret weapon, the shaped charge explosive, to blow up the artillery turrets. The action was so quick and swift that only a few men died on both sides.
Soon after the breakthrough, the entire British Expeditionary Force and the majority of the French Army were thus trapped near the French town of Dunkirk. With nowhere else to run, the British gathered everything that could float and rescued the near-entirety of the BEF and a good number of French troops. The Germans, meanwhile, were halted as Luftwaffe Commander-in-Chief Göring persuaded Hitler that his planes could annihilate the remaining Allied forces. This did not happen due to poor weather making aerial attacks difficult, and since then, the German Army began to distrust the Luftwaffe. Despite this, the Allied defeat was total. Britain was ejected from the continent and, having left nearly all their equipment and heavy arms at Dunkirk, unable to redeploy their forces, giving the Germans free reign to maneuver in Western Europe. Less than ten days later, General Erwin Rommel and his 7th Panzer Division, who moved so quickly even Berlin lost track of them during the campaign, sent a message to army headquarters as they stood overlooking the English Channel: "Am at coast." The Wehrmacht then turned south to capture Paris, now an open city, before they were finally halted on June 22, when an armistice was signed between Germany and France.
Alert readers will notice that we haven't said a word about the Maginot Line for many paragraphs at this point. So let's get back to that. Was the Maginot Line a stupid idea that completely failed? No, it wasn't; it was a reasonable idea that did exactly what it was intended to do (force the Germans to attack through Belgium; free up soldiers to counter that attack). Was it a good idea? That is a much harder question. It is possible that the French would have done better if they'd spent more of their resources on other things like better mechanized forcesnote , better intelligence analysis, better training, etc.; but this doesn't mean necessarily that they shouldn't have built a Maginot Line, but rather that they could have spent less on itnote , and more on other things. However, it's important to remember that, historically, even with the strategic choices they made the Allies had serious chances of winning the Battle of France in the early days, and of not losing so badly even after the initial surprise. They also arguably could have won the war if they'd invaded Germany in 1939 instead of waiting for the Germans to attack.
So the Maginot Line played an important role in the Fall of France, but not a dominant one.
A final important fact is that the French high command was warned of the dangers posed by Ardennes assault since 1938. In May-June 1938, General André-Gaston Prételat staged a map exercise to determine what would happen if the Germans decide to use tanks to attack through the Ardennes and how long would it take for the Germans to go through the forest and reach the Meuse. He concluded that it would take 60 hours, which is only 3 hours more that what Germany actually pulled off later in 1940. The French high command, especially Gamelin, instead chose to accuse the general of pessimism, bury the exercise result to prevent lower rank panic, and keep insisting that it would take much longer than that so they can easily ignore putting defense in place and count on organizing counterattack instead. You could imagine how different the war could turn out if Prételat's warning was taken seriously.
Fun historical fact: you'd think that, after the Allies were defeated catastrophically by a surprise German attack through the Ardennes, they'd never fall for the same trick again, right? Well, that's only half right: in the Battle of the Bulge, four and a half years later, the Germans managed to trick the Americans and launch a major surprise attack through the Ardennes (under the cover of fog and bad weather which grounded their air-forces), which the Americans considered a quiet region of the front and thus had sent weakened divisions there to recover. However, the Americans were better-armed and more numerous relative to their attackers than the French had been four years earlier and put up a much better fight. More importantly, this Allied commander (General Patton) correctly judged that this would be the main thrust of their offensive and rushed in so many troops (chiefly the US's Third Army) that the Allies soon had the attacking Germans outnumbered and out-gunned. Once their offensive had effectively been halted the Germans quickly withdrew as their positions were exposed and Hitler wanted their mobile formations dispatched to Hungary as quickly as possible so they could try to relieve the Siege of Budapest in Unternehmen Konrad.
Also note: invading through the Ardennes had already been used by the Germans in World War I and went pretty badly for both sides, with the German invasion force running out of food and horses at a ridiculous rate due to the area's poor infrastructure (and the French demolition of said infrastructure as they retreated). | 3,267 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Which exactly are all of the houses in mathematics? What does the range mean in mathematics? This guide will show the several sorts of answers you are able to have on your equations, and all of the combinations that you can research and many distinct ways to you.
What’s just really a many in mathematics? You’ll find various tactics to express what’s just a variable in mathematics. You are saying what N would be in the equation and also to the right.
The way to state what N would be in math is a quantity that may be distinct and N. You are able to compose the equation that way or employing the exact same equation, nevertheless, also you would like to create N being a individual group. coursework writing The N at the equation is utilised to prove that you are not currently specifying some, however, certainly are still currently defining a term.
N is often written by you as the very identical quantity you also can create N as one into this right or you can produce N within an angle. You can use a multiple in math’s definition with this is of N being a angle.
You may write exactly the very same value being made use of by N . You are able to utilize N .
You are able to also publish N by two angles employing the suitable hand side of this equation. N is usually written by you. All of these are variations of N.
The means to state what N is in mathematics is N, as well as a different angle. http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Cushioning It’s possible to create N by 2 angles, a single angle, either or even three angles. You are able to write N by a single angle.
You might even compose N two angles. You are able to also compose N two angles and a angle. N might be written by you two angles along with also a angle.
You could also write N by two angles along with a triple angle, 3 angles, plus an angle. It is possible to write N by a quadrant, either a quadrangle or quadrant, or four angles plus two angles. N is usually written by you for three angles and also a quadrant.
You might also produce N by means of a quadrant and three angles. You can also write N by a few angles and also a quadrant. You may also produce N as a two and quadrant angles.
You may even compose N using a three and quadrant angles as well as a quadrant plus two angles. You can even create two angles and N as a quadrant as well as also a radius. | <urn:uuid:8ee5d4eb-0840-49ff-8903-cb460237c25c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://dhtire.co.kr/which-exactly-are-the-properties-in-q/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00393.warc.gz | en | 0.98311 | 543 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.05777319148182869,
-0.33766672015190125,
0.16211213171482086,
-0.5122795104980469,
-0.46212032437324524,
0.21975812315940857,
0.14166027307510376,
-0.16967345774173737,
0.0749536082148552,
-0.13575014472007751,
0.280893474817276,
-0.18374493718147278,
0.10096298158168793,
-0.24156536161... | 2 | Which exactly are all of the houses in mathematics? What does the range mean in mathematics? This guide will show the several sorts of answers you are able to have on your equations, and all of the combinations that you can research and many distinct ways to you.
What’s just really a many in mathematics? You’ll find various tactics to express what’s just a variable in mathematics. You are saying what N would be in the equation and also to the right.
The way to state what N would be in math is a quantity that may be distinct and N. You are able to compose the equation that way or employing the exact same equation, nevertheless, also you would like to create N being a individual group. coursework writing The N at the equation is utilised to prove that you are not currently specifying some, however, certainly are still currently defining a term.
N is often written by you as the very identical quantity you also can create N as one into this right or you can produce N within an angle. You can use a multiple in math’s definition with this is of N being a angle.
You may write exactly the very same value being made use of by N . You are able to utilize N .
You are able to also publish N by two angles employing the suitable hand side of this equation. N is usually written by you. All of these are variations of N.
The means to state what N is in mathematics is N, as well as a different angle. http://en.wikipedia.com/wiki/Cushioning It’s possible to create N by 2 angles, a single angle, either or even three angles. You are able to write N by a single angle.
You might even compose N two angles. You are able to also compose N two angles and a angle. N might be written by you two angles along with also a angle.
You could also write N by two angles along with a triple angle, 3 angles, plus an angle. It is possible to write N by a quadrant, either a quadrangle or quadrant, or four angles plus two angles. N is usually written by you for three angles and also a quadrant.
You might also produce N by means of a quadrant and three angles. You can also write N by a few angles and also a quadrant. You may also produce N as a two and quadrant angles.
You may even compose N using a three and quadrant angles as well as a quadrant plus two angles. You can even create two angles and N as a quadrant as well as also a radius. | 510 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Thursday, December 19, 2019
01 Work, Interpretation the bible, With Footnotes - 127
Hans Baldung Grien, (c. 1484 – September 1545)
Lot and his daughters
Oil on panel, in three parts
37 5/8 x 63 3/8 in. (95.6 x 158.4 cm.)
Lot and his two daughters, Genesis 19:30-38, left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today. More Lot and his two daughters
Hans Baldung Grien or Grün (c. 1484 – September 1545) was a German artist in painting and printmaking who was considered the most gifted student of Albrecht Dürer. Throughout his lifetime, Baldung developed a distinctive style, full of color, expression and imagination. His talents were varied, and he produced a great and extensive variety of work including portraits, woodcuts, altarpieces, drawings, tapestries, allegories and mythological motifs.
Beginning in 1503, Baldung was an apprentice for the most well renowned German artist of the day: Albrecht Dürer. In 1509, when Baldung’s apprenticeship was complete, he moved back to Strasbourg, opened a workshop, and began signing his works with the HGB monogram that he used for the rest of his career. His style also became much more deliberately individual, a tendency some art historians have termed "mannerist."
His most characteristic paintings are small in scale; a series of puzzling, often erotic allegories and mythological works. The number of Hans Baldung's religious works diminished with the Protestant Reformation, which generally repudiated church art as either wasteful or idolatrous. More on Hans Baldung
Please visit my other blogs: Art Collector, Mythology, Marine Art, Portrait of a Lady, The Orientalist, Art of the Nude and The Canals of Venice, And visit my Boards on Pinterest
Images are copyright of their respective owners, assignees or others. Some Images may be subject to copyright
I don't own any of these images - credit is always given when due unless it is unknown to me. if I post your images without your permission, please tell me.
I do not sell art, art prints, framed posters or reproductions. Ads are shown only to compensate the hosting expenses.
If you enjoyed this post, please share with friends and family.
Thank you for visiting my blog and also for liking its posts and pages. | <urn:uuid:ae288397-41c3-4bcf-ad92-cc4792ca1d02> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://painting-mythology.blogspot.com/2019/12/01-work-interpretation-bible-with_19.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00380.warc.gz | en | 0.982001 | 809 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
0.11879340559244156,
0.6249909400939941,
-0.053804799914360046,
-0.48701339960098267,
-0.19149085879325867,
0.05111188441514969,
-0.12946374714374542,
-0.017535274848341942,
-0.4177979826927185,
-0.46751904487609863,
0.04342488572001457,
-0.48370248079299927,
-0.0006615184247493744,
0.0962... | 2 | Thursday, December 19, 2019
01 Work, Interpretation the bible, With Footnotes - 127
Hans Baldung Grien, (c. 1484 – September 1545)
Lot and his daughters
Oil on panel, in three parts
37 5/8 x 63 3/8 in. (95.6 x 158.4 cm.)
Lot and his two daughters, Genesis 19:30-38, left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and slept with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and sleep with him so we can preserve our family line through our father.” So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went in and slept with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father. The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of today. More Lot and his two daughters
Hans Baldung Grien or Grün (c. 1484 – September 1545) was a German artist in painting and printmaking who was considered the most gifted student of Albrecht Dürer. Throughout his lifetime, Baldung developed a distinctive style, full of color, expression and imagination. His talents were varied, and he produced a great and extensive variety of work including portraits, woodcuts, altarpieces, drawings, tapestries, allegories and mythological motifs.
Beginning in 1503, Baldung was an apprentice for the most well renowned German artist of the day: Albrecht Dürer. In 1509, when Baldung’s apprenticeship was complete, he moved back to Strasbourg, opened a workshop, and began signing his works with the HGB monogram that he used for the rest of his career. His style also became much more deliberately individual, a tendency some art historians have termed "mannerist."
His most characteristic paintings are small in scale; a series of puzzling, often erotic allegories and mythological works. The number of Hans Baldung's religious works diminished with the Protestant Reformation, which generally repudiated church art as either wasteful or idolatrous. More on Hans Baldung
Please visit my other blogs: Art Collector, Mythology, Marine Art, Portrait of a Lady, The Orientalist, Art of the Nude and The Canals of Venice, And visit my Boards on Pinterest
Images are copyright of their respective owners, assignees or others. Some Images may be subject to copyright
I don't own any of these images - credit is always given when due unless it is unknown to me. if I post your images without your permission, please tell me.
I do not sell art, art prints, framed posters or reproductions. Ads are shown only to compensate the hosting expenses.
If you enjoyed this post, please share with friends and family.
Thank you for visiting my blog and also for liking its posts and pages. | 826 | ENGLISH | 1 |
There are lots of useful skills that children learn through schedules, routines and programs, and even more that they are able to learn through structured lessons in school. However, there are some life skills which children can’t just be taught, as they have to be given the opportunity to learn them for themselves. Self confidence is something which children have to develop in their own time, but that doesn’t mean that, as their parent, there aren’t things that you can do to help them along the way. So, with that in mind, here are six ways that you can help your children in their journey towards becoming more self-confident.
It may seem like the easiest way to boost your child’s self esteem would be to keep on praising them all of the time, but this can actually become counterproductive if you overdo it. In order to start feeling more confident within themselves, your children must learn to develop self efficacy and the ability to self affirm. That means giving them the space to provide themselves with praise and appreciation, rather than constantly seeking it from other people.
Allow them to take risks
Children have to try and fail in order to learn new things, whether that means trying to climb a tree and scraping their knees, or trying a new hobby and finding that they aren’t as good at it as they would have liked.
However, when children are overprotected, they often lose their ability to explore their curiosity and approach the world with the fearlessness that they need to discover new skills and abilities. Over time, this can often lead to anxiety and a lack of self esteem, so it is important that you allow your children to take reasonable risks every now and then.
Practice what you preach
In order for your children to understand self confidence, they need to be provided with a clear model of what it means to be confident within yourself, and the best person to provide that example is a parent or caregiver. If you want your children to develop good self esteem, then it is important to find ways to develop your own too. If you are someone who isn’t naturally self confident, then there are a number of things that you can do to improve on your self perception.
For instance, you might decide to start doing more active hobbies that you enjoy, start pursuing more independent activities, or make some changes to your lifestyle or appearance that will help you feel happier within yourself. For example, if you are uncomfortable with your hair, you might decide to get a new hairstyle, or consider potential cosmetic procedures, such as by looking into trusted hair transplant reviews.
Offer praise when appropriate
Although praise can often be misused or overused, when it is used in an appropriate manner it is very important for building self esteem. For example, if your child has accomplished something especially impressive, or if they are having a particularly bad day, then you can help to reaffirm their self confidence by pointing out their achievements, or by telling them something good to counteract some of the bad so that it doesn’t knock their confidence as much.
Let them make their own way
As a parent, it can be tempting to want to protect your children from ever feeling or experiencing anything negative in their lives, but sometimes they have to go through their own battles in order to learn their own lessons and grow in confidence. Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t still be there for them, but you have to accept you can’t always be the one to step in and fix everything for them.
You can also help your children to learn on the go by giving them more responsibilities, as this will not only show that you trust them, but it will also give them a sense of accomplishment and show them what they are capable of achieving on their own.
Support their dreams and goals
All parents want their children to be successful, which is absolutely understandable. However, this is unfortunately why a lot of children are told to pursue different careers to the things that they really want to do, as their parents are worried that their ideal careers might be impractical.
If you want your children to be more confident in their abilities, it is important to be supportive of their dreams and goals, even if it is just as a hobby. | <urn:uuid:a400d95f-cf42-498d-83c1-1386ce9ec93b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.daddacool.co.uk/2019/12/6-ways-to-help-your-children-grow-their-self-confidence/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00486.warc.gz | en | 0.980868 | 876 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.3398255705833435,
-0.3616829514503479,
0.4509502351284027,
-0.4983939528465271,
-0.5083928108215332,
0.5391961336135864,
0.2620828151702881,
-0.1140473484992981,
-0.14508181810379028,
-0.16181278228759766,
0.462776780128479,
-0.22387519478797913,
0.35159406065940857,
0.22515791654586792,... | 13 | There are lots of useful skills that children learn through schedules, routines and programs, and even more that they are able to learn through structured lessons in school. However, there are some life skills which children can’t just be taught, as they have to be given the opportunity to learn them for themselves. Self confidence is something which children have to develop in their own time, but that doesn’t mean that, as their parent, there aren’t things that you can do to help them along the way. So, with that in mind, here are six ways that you can help your children in their journey towards becoming more self-confident.
It may seem like the easiest way to boost your child’s self esteem would be to keep on praising them all of the time, but this can actually become counterproductive if you overdo it. In order to start feeling more confident within themselves, your children must learn to develop self efficacy and the ability to self affirm. That means giving them the space to provide themselves with praise and appreciation, rather than constantly seeking it from other people.
Allow them to take risks
Children have to try and fail in order to learn new things, whether that means trying to climb a tree and scraping their knees, or trying a new hobby and finding that they aren’t as good at it as they would have liked.
However, when children are overprotected, they often lose their ability to explore their curiosity and approach the world with the fearlessness that they need to discover new skills and abilities. Over time, this can often lead to anxiety and a lack of self esteem, so it is important that you allow your children to take reasonable risks every now and then.
Practice what you preach
In order for your children to understand self confidence, they need to be provided with a clear model of what it means to be confident within yourself, and the best person to provide that example is a parent or caregiver. If you want your children to develop good self esteem, then it is important to find ways to develop your own too. If you are someone who isn’t naturally self confident, then there are a number of things that you can do to improve on your self perception.
For instance, you might decide to start doing more active hobbies that you enjoy, start pursuing more independent activities, or make some changes to your lifestyle or appearance that will help you feel happier within yourself. For example, if you are uncomfortable with your hair, you might decide to get a new hairstyle, or consider potential cosmetic procedures, such as by looking into trusted hair transplant reviews.
Offer praise when appropriate
Although praise can often be misused or overused, when it is used in an appropriate manner it is very important for building self esteem. For example, if your child has accomplished something especially impressive, or if they are having a particularly bad day, then you can help to reaffirm their self confidence by pointing out their achievements, or by telling them something good to counteract some of the bad so that it doesn’t knock their confidence as much.
Let them make their own way
As a parent, it can be tempting to want to protect your children from ever feeling or experiencing anything negative in their lives, but sometimes they have to go through their own battles in order to learn their own lessons and grow in confidence. Of course, that doesn’t mean you can’t still be there for them, but you have to accept you can’t always be the one to step in and fix everything for them.
You can also help your children to learn on the go by giving them more responsibilities, as this will not only show that you trust them, but it will also give them a sense of accomplishment and show them what they are capable of achieving on their own.
Support their dreams and goals
All parents want their children to be successful, which is absolutely understandable. However, this is unfortunately why a lot of children are told to pursue different careers to the things that they really want to do, as their parents are worried that their ideal careers might be impractical.
If you want your children to be more confident in their abilities, it is important to be supportive of their dreams and goals, even if it is just as a hobby. | 844 | ENGLISH | 1 |
After reviewing the lectures, readings and activities I learned a lot of new things about race that I never even thought of or considered. I guess I have just kind of thought of all of us as people who are looking to work hard and make something for ourselves. Create opportunities whenever possible and work towards being better beings. Who came up with the word race and what was the process? I would say that race is something that is socially constructed.
In a lot of things to get the best understanding of something is to experience it not read about it. A lot of things that this world is based off of is reading instead of listening and experiencing. The activity “sorting people” really helped to put that into perspective. It seems that the government decided it was going to categorize people based off of the way they looked and people kind of went with it. Even though in 1970 citizens were able to choose their own identification, the damage had been done. I feel like a lot of times people are not willing to listen and often times making judgments automatically. “Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race” (PBS).
Education to me is also a major factor in how race is socially constructed. A lot of times in the school systems race is just defined by the color of skin and they call it good. People spread that and it continues to grow. A lot of history classes discuss the fact that “the U.S was founded on the radical new principle that ‘all men are created equal.’ But our early economy was based largely on slavery” (PBS). People learn these things at a basic level instead of a deeper understanding. Stories from families carried down also play into how race is socially constructed. Stories from families are another form of education. Children listen to their families and then tell those stories to their friends. We need to “identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others” (PBS). | <urn:uuid:357afc48-4060-4cd7-aff1-499d7235f8ed> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp330-us16/2016/07/11/week-one-reflection-post/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00473.warc.gz | en | 0.986909 | 431 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.0608939453959465,
0.18780328333377838,
0.13865111768245697,
-0.1819118708372116,
-0.2294786125421524,
0.29183560609817505,
0.23469096422195435,
0.16122359037399292,
0.003829308319836855,
-0.04169682040810585,
0.5003183484077454,
0.0418626070022583,
0.006438379175961018,
0.266153126955032... | 2 | After reviewing the lectures, readings and activities I learned a lot of new things about race that I never even thought of or considered. I guess I have just kind of thought of all of us as people who are looking to work hard and make something for ourselves. Create opportunities whenever possible and work towards being better beings. Who came up with the word race and what was the process? I would say that race is something that is socially constructed.
In a lot of things to get the best understanding of something is to experience it not read about it. A lot of things that this world is based off of is reading instead of listening and experiencing. The activity “sorting people” really helped to put that into perspective. It seems that the government decided it was going to categorize people based off of the way they looked and people kind of went with it. Even though in 1970 citizens were able to choose their own identification, the damage had been done. I feel like a lot of times people are not willing to listen and often times making judgments automatically. “Race has no genetic basis. Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the members of one so-called race from all the members of another so-called race” (PBS).
Education to me is also a major factor in how race is socially constructed. A lot of times in the school systems race is just defined by the color of skin and they call it good. People spread that and it continues to grow. A lot of history classes discuss the fact that “the U.S was founded on the radical new principle that ‘all men are created equal.’ But our early economy was based largely on slavery” (PBS). People learn these things at a basic level instead of a deeper understanding. Stories from families carried down also play into how race is socially constructed. Stories from families are another form of education. Children listen to their families and then tell those stories to their friends. We need to “identify and remedy social policies and institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of others” (PBS). | 415 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Here are images of all three known Virginia regimental standards, shown together apparently for the first time. All three flags are in anonymous private collections but have been exhibited publicly. The flag in the middle belonged to the 8th Virginia. One of the other flags reportedly belonged to the 3rd Virginia. The faded rectangle in the center of the 8th Virginia flag is a consequence of light damage resulting from the way in which it was displayed for many years--it was originally one consistent (salmon) color. The flags follow an apparently standard design, but in varying colors. The color was the most important distinguishing characteristic of the flags, which were used to help troops stay organized in the smoke and confusion of battle.
The scrolls on the blue and yellow flags contain only the word "regiment." This suggests that they were made at the same time, with the intention that regiment numbers would be added when the colors had been assigned to the respective units. (The word "regiment" is not centered in the scrolls; space was retained to the left of the word on both flags.) The writing in the 8th Virginia's scroll is illegible because of light damage. The writing was retouched on the reverse side of the flag to say "VIII Virg Regt." An 1847 account in the Richmond Whig says the scroll contained the words "VIII Virga Regt." This sets it apart from the other two flags. This can be explained by the history of Virginia's Continental regiments.
The 1st and 2nd regiments were authorized by the Virginia convention in 1775 for one-year enlistments. Seven more regiments were authorized in December of 1775 to be formed in 1776 for two-year enlistments, with the expectation that the 1st and 2nd would also continue with new or reenlisted men. Virginia expected all of these regiments to be taken into the Continental Army. Congress, however, initially only authorized seven Virginia Continental regiments. Despite being the first regiment to leave the Commonwealth in Continental service, the 8th drew the short straw and was not recognized immediately as anything other than a provincial (after July 4, "state") regiment. (The same was true of the small 9th regiment, which was created only for Eastern Shore defense.) At the urging of General Charles Lee, Congress later increased the number of authorized Virginia Continental regiments. One consequence of this complicated history may be that the 8th Virginia's regimental standard was not made at the same time as the other banners.
Jonathan Clark was one of the 8th Virginia’s ten company captains. He was the older brother of the explorer William Clark, famous for the Lewis and Clark expedition. He was also the older brother of George Rogers Clark, the victor of the now-obscure Battle of Vincennes, which won the old “northwest territory” from the British in the Revolution. Did you ever wonder how all the territory east of the Mississippi became American territory after the war, not just the 13 colonies? The answer is George Rogers Clark.
Jonathan Clark was an important figure in his own right, and left the only comprehensive diary of the 8th Virginia’s experiences in the war. It is frustratingly concise, but also crucially important in piecing the regiment's history together. Jim Holmberg, a Kentucky historian and archivist, wrote a blog post about the eldest Clark brother four years ago on the bicentennial of his death. You can read it here.
On February 7, 1776, John Stump was one of the earliest recruits to join the 8th Virginia. He was recruited by Captain Abel Westfall or one of his lieutenants to join their new company of Virginia provincial soldiers. The company was one of ten that would make up the 8th Virginia Regiment. John was probably the son of Michael Stump, a German who had changed his name from Hans Stumpff.
John marched with the regiment to South Carolina in the summer of 1776 and was present for the Battle of Sullivan's Island. The joy of that victory was followed by a summer and fall of intense suffering. The soldiers of the 8th fell victims to malaria--a mosquito-born illness these men from the mountains were ill-prepared for. After a planned invasion of British Florida was called off, they sat sick in camp at Sunbury, Georgia--a few of them dying nearly every day.
When winter came and the malarial season ended, they hobbled back to Virginia. In the spring, those who were healthy enough marched off to join Washington's "Grand Camp" in New Jersey. They walked north, crossing the Potomac at Harper's Ferry through Maryland into Pennsylvania before heading east through York, Lancaster, and Philadelphia. John Stump, however, couldn't make it much past Harper's Ferry. Muster rolls for the rest of the year report that he was "left sick in Maryland." After this, there is no further (discovered) record of him being alive.
It could have been malaria, smallpox, or another disease--but John Stump probably died somewhere near Frederick, Maryland. This was the fate of many 8th Virginia soldiers. Disease was the primary killer of the war, and no regiment was hit harder by it than the 8th Virginia.
The frontier cabin built by Michael Stump will be open for tours late this month. Records have not been found to prove it, but this is probably the cabin John Stump grew up in. Presumably, it was there that he shook his father's hand and kissed his mother's cheek before marching of to war, never to return. Current owners John and Beverly Buhl will open their doors during Hardy County Heritage Weekend, September 26 and 27. View their website for more information.
“The first time I heard of the 8th Virginia Standard was during an internet search on the 8th,” writes Rob Andrews, an SAR member and Revolutionary War reenactor with the 1st Virginia Regiment. What he found was an 1847 reference in the Richmond Whig. The newspaper quoted Peter Muhlenberg’s great nephew saying, “The regimental color of this corps (8th Virginia Regiment of the Line) is still in the [my] possession. It is made of plain salmon-colored silk, with a broad fringe of the same, having a simple white scroll in the centre, upon which are inscribed the words, ‘VIII Virga. Reg’t.’ The spear-head is brass, considerably ornamented. The banner bears the traces of warm service, and is probably the only revolutionary flag in existence.”
After this, there was no discoverable mention of the flag anywhere. “I emailed the folks at Valley Forge and the Trappe Foundation in Trappe PA, where the Muhlenberg family lived. Emails bounced around and finally one person said he thought he knew who had it. I didn't hear anything for awhile and then one day an email from Bernard Goetz popped into my box with two pictures of the flag. It was in a frame and had a card at the bottom stating its provenance. I was appalled at the pictures and immediately advised Mr Goetz to remove the flag from the frame.” The flag had not been professionally conserved, had faded where it faced the glass, and was displayed with a card that claimed a service history that followed General Muhlenberg’s career—not that of the 8th Virginia (which he led for a year).
“That was all I heard of it for several years,” says Rob.
Sometime later, “Mr. Goetz passed away and [in 2012] his descendants placed all his historical artifacts up for auction at Freeman’s Auction in Philadelphia. Prior to the auction, Freeman’s brought it to Shenandoah County to be displayed. I was lucky that I found out about it just a couple of days prior to the event. I contacted my friend Erik [Dorman] who also was interested in writing about the 8th and we decided to show up in our uniforms. We caused quite a stir when we walked around the corner of the Courthouse into the square. We were immediately enlisted to "guard" the flag and unveil it during the event.”
Rob also shares one important explanation about the flag’s appearance. “As someone in the past painted the flag so that 8th Virginia was visible” the opposite side of the flag is displayed “to show its original condition. And its years in the frame have led to its faded rectangle appearance.”
As mentioned a few posts ago, the flag was purchased anonymously for $422,500 and is once again owned by an anonymous collector.
Thanks to Rob Andrews for the information in this post.
Two posts ago, we featured the house of Captain Robert Higgins. Here is a note authored by Higgins in support of a post-war bounty land warrant issued to the heirs of one of his soldiers, Zachariah DeLong. In the spring of 1777, the enlistments of an entire company of the 8th expired. Short a company, Colonel Muhlenberg proposed his brother-in-law, Francis Swain (the regiment's adjutant), be made a captain. Washington overruled Muhlenberg and promoted Robert Higgins instead. Higgins spent the next six months diligently attempting to recruit a new company from scratch. The euphoria of 1776, however, had been replaced by the cold reality that nearly half of the original regiment was already dead or severely sick from malaria. Higgins was never able to recruit more than about 15 men. Zachariah DeLong was one of the brave souls who signed up.
Higgins brought his tiny company to the main army in August of 1777 and quickly faced combat at Brandywine (September 11) and Germantown (October 4), where Higgins and many others were captured. As an officer, Higgins was treated better by the British than Zachariah and his enlisted companions were. Higgins signed at least three of these notes, attesting that soldiers had indeed served under him before dying of rampant disease in a filthy British jail only four months after their capture. (Peter Muhlenberg, by the way, made Francis Swain his brigade major when he received his promotion to brigadier general. Swain was terrible at the job and washed out of the army.)
Thanks to Tom Higgins of Shelbyville, Kentucky, for this document.
Most regimental standards have not survived. The flag of the 8th, though in private hands, is a truly rare gem. It is not, however, the only Virginia regimental flag to survive. The 3rd Virginia's flags also survive, because they were captured and taken to England as trophies. A comparison raises some interesting questions. Two other flags purchased in 2006 by an anonymous bidder but displayed at Williamsburg in 2007 look almost identical to the 8th Virginia's flag, but in different colors. This suggests that they belonged to different regiments, even though the flags displayed in Williamsburg are described as both having belonged to the 3rd Virginia. The color, rather than the image on the flag, was the most important thing on a smoky battlefield battlefield. These flags were used to help soldiers of a regiment stay together. Men of the 8th were to stay by the salmon-colored flag. Men of the 3rd, by this one (or a blue one). The two that were displayed in Williamsburg only say "regiment," without a number. This suggests that they were manufactured generically in various colors and that the regimental numbers were intended to be added later, but weren't in all cases. Images of the other flags displayed at Williamsburg can be seen at this link. If anyone knows more about this, please share!
is researching the history of the Revolutionary War's 8th Virginia Regiment. Its ten companies formed on the frontier, from the Cumberland Gap to Pittsburgh.
© 2015-2020 Gabriel Neville | <urn:uuid:cfbf4cec-8361-49ab-9313-e34c8e4b9141> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.8thvirginia.com/blog/archives/09-2015 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00147.warc.gz | en | 0.980755 | 2,469 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.3662652373313904,
0.2250145673751831,
0.04121408984065056,
0.10052815079689026,
-0.0015938151627779007,
0.3373255729675293,
-0.1487736701965332,
-0.07415212690830231,
0.15120837092399597,
-0.0026235145051032305,
0.17366749048233032,
-0.29590535163879395,
-0.2788854241371155,
-0.08352750... | 2 | Here are images of all three known Virginia regimental standards, shown together apparently for the first time. All three flags are in anonymous private collections but have been exhibited publicly. The flag in the middle belonged to the 8th Virginia. One of the other flags reportedly belonged to the 3rd Virginia. The faded rectangle in the center of the 8th Virginia flag is a consequence of light damage resulting from the way in which it was displayed for many years--it was originally one consistent (salmon) color. The flags follow an apparently standard design, but in varying colors. The color was the most important distinguishing characteristic of the flags, which were used to help troops stay organized in the smoke and confusion of battle.
The scrolls on the blue and yellow flags contain only the word "regiment." This suggests that they were made at the same time, with the intention that regiment numbers would be added when the colors had been assigned to the respective units. (The word "regiment" is not centered in the scrolls; space was retained to the left of the word on both flags.) The writing in the 8th Virginia's scroll is illegible because of light damage. The writing was retouched on the reverse side of the flag to say "VIII Virg Regt." An 1847 account in the Richmond Whig says the scroll contained the words "VIII Virga Regt." This sets it apart from the other two flags. This can be explained by the history of Virginia's Continental regiments.
The 1st and 2nd regiments were authorized by the Virginia convention in 1775 for one-year enlistments. Seven more regiments were authorized in December of 1775 to be formed in 1776 for two-year enlistments, with the expectation that the 1st and 2nd would also continue with new or reenlisted men. Virginia expected all of these regiments to be taken into the Continental Army. Congress, however, initially only authorized seven Virginia Continental regiments. Despite being the first regiment to leave the Commonwealth in Continental service, the 8th drew the short straw and was not recognized immediately as anything other than a provincial (after July 4, "state") regiment. (The same was true of the small 9th regiment, which was created only for Eastern Shore defense.) At the urging of General Charles Lee, Congress later increased the number of authorized Virginia Continental regiments. One consequence of this complicated history may be that the 8th Virginia's regimental standard was not made at the same time as the other banners.
Jonathan Clark was one of the 8th Virginia’s ten company captains. He was the older brother of the explorer William Clark, famous for the Lewis and Clark expedition. He was also the older brother of George Rogers Clark, the victor of the now-obscure Battle of Vincennes, which won the old “northwest territory” from the British in the Revolution. Did you ever wonder how all the territory east of the Mississippi became American territory after the war, not just the 13 colonies? The answer is George Rogers Clark.
Jonathan Clark was an important figure in his own right, and left the only comprehensive diary of the 8th Virginia’s experiences in the war. It is frustratingly concise, but also crucially important in piecing the regiment's history together. Jim Holmberg, a Kentucky historian and archivist, wrote a blog post about the eldest Clark brother four years ago on the bicentennial of his death. You can read it here.
On February 7, 1776, John Stump was one of the earliest recruits to join the 8th Virginia. He was recruited by Captain Abel Westfall or one of his lieutenants to join their new company of Virginia provincial soldiers. The company was one of ten that would make up the 8th Virginia Regiment. John was probably the son of Michael Stump, a German who had changed his name from Hans Stumpff.
John marched with the regiment to South Carolina in the summer of 1776 and was present for the Battle of Sullivan's Island. The joy of that victory was followed by a summer and fall of intense suffering. The soldiers of the 8th fell victims to malaria--a mosquito-born illness these men from the mountains were ill-prepared for. After a planned invasion of British Florida was called off, they sat sick in camp at Sunbury, Georgia--a few of them dying nearly every day.
When winter came and the malarial season ended, they hobbled back to Virginia. In the spring, those who were healthy enough marched off to join Washington's "Grand Camp" in New Jersey. They walked north, crossing the Potomac at Harper's Ferry through Maryland into Pennsylvania before heading east through York, Lancaster, and Philadelphia. John Stump, however, couldn't make it much past Harper's Ferry. Muster rolls for the rest of the year report that he was "left sick in Maryland." After this, there is no further (discovered) record of him being alive.
It could have been malaria, smallpox, or another disease--but John Stump probably died somewhere near Frederick, Maryland. This was the fate of many 8th Virginia soldiers. Disease was the primary killer of the war, and no regiment was hit harder by it than the 8th Virginia.
The frontier cabin built by Michael Stump will be open for tours late this month. Records have not been found to prove it, but this is probably the cabin John Stump grew up in. Presumably, it was there that he shook his father's hand and kissed his mother's cheek before marching of to war, never to return. Current owners John and Beverly Buhl will open their doors during Hardy County Heritage Weekend, September 26 and 27. View their website for more information.
“The first time I heard of the 8th Virginia Standard was during an internet search on the 8th,” writes Rob Andrews, an SAR member and Revolutionary War reenactor with the 1st Virginia Regiment. What he found was an 1847 reference in the Richmond Whig. The newspaper quoted Peter Muhlenberg’s great nephew saying, “The regimental color of this corps (8th Virginia Regiment of the Line) is still in the [my] possession. It is made of plain salmon-colored silk, with a broad fringe of the same, having a simple white scroll in the centre, upon which are inscribed the words, ‘VIII Virga. Reg’t.’ The spear-head is brass, considerably ornamented. The banner bears the traces of warm service, and is probably the only revolutionary flag in existence.”
After this, there was no discoverable mention of the flag anywhere. “I emailed the folks at Valley Forge and the Trappe Foundation in Trappe PA, where the Muhlenberg family lived. Emails bounced around and finally one person said he thought he knew who had it. I didn't hear anything for awhile and then one day an email from Bernard Goetz popped into my box with two pictures of the flag. It was in a frame and had a card at the bottom stating its provenance. I was appalled at the pictures and immediately advised Mr Goetz to remove the flag from the frame.” The flag had not been professionally conserved, had faded where it faced the glass, and was displayed with a card that claimed a service history that followed General Muhlenberg’s career—not that of the 8th Virginia (which he led for a year).
“That was all I heard of it for several years,” says Rob.
Sometime later, “Mr. Goetz passed away and [in 2012] his descendants placed all his historical artifacts up for auction at Freeman’s Auction in Philadelphia. Prior to the auction, Freeman’s brought it to Shenandoah County to be displayed. I was lucky that I found out about it just a couple of days prior to the event. I contacted my friend Erik [Dorman] who also was interested in writing about the 8th and we decided to show up in our uniforms. We caused quite a stir when we walked around the corner of the Courthouse into the square. We were immediately enlisted to "guard" the flag and unveil it during the event.”
Rob also shares one important explanation about the flag’s appearance. “As someone in the past painted the flag so that 8th Virginia was visible” the opposite side of the flag is displayed “to show its original condition. And its years in the frame have led to its faded rectangle appearance.”
As mentioned a few posts ago, the flag was purchased anonymously for $422,500 and is once again owned by an anonymous collector.
Thanks to Rob Andrews for the information in this post.
Two posts ago, we featured the house of Captain Robert Higgins. Here is a note authored by Higgins in support of a post-war bounty land warrant issued to the heirs of one of his soldiers, Zachariah DeLong. In the spring of 1777, the enlistments of an entire company of the 8th expired. Short a company, Colonel Muhlenberg proposed his brother-in-law, Francis Swain (the regiment's adjutant), be made a captain. Washington overruled Muhlenberg and promoted Robert Higgins instead. Higgins spent the next six months diligently attempting to recruit a new company from scratch. The euphoria of 1776, however, had been replaced by the cold reality that nearly half of the original regiment was already dead or severely sick from malaria. Higgins was never able to recruit more than about 15 men. Zachariah DeLong was one of the brave souls who signed up.
Higgins brought his tiny company to the main army in August of 1777 and quickly faced combat at Brandywine (September 11) and Germantown (October 4), where Higgins and many others were captured. As an officer, Higgins was treated better by the British than Zachariah and his enlisted companions were. Higgins signed at least three of these notes, attesting that soldiers had indeed served under him before dying of rampant disease in a filthy British jail only four months after their capture. (Peter Muhlenberg, by the way, made Francis Swain his brigade major when he received his promotion to brigadier general. Swain was terrible at the job and washed out of the army.)
Thanks to Tom Higgins of Shelbyville, Kentucky, for this document.
Most regimental standards have not survived. The flag of the 8th, though in private hands, is a truly rare gem. It is not, however, the only Virginia regimental flag to survive. The 3rd Virginia's flags also survive, because they were captured and taken to England as trophies. A comparison raises some interesting questions. Two other flags purchased in 2006 by an anonymous bidder but displayed at Williamsburg in 2007 look almost identical to the 8th Virginia's flag, but in different colors. This suggests that they belonged to different regiments, even though the flags displayed in Williamsburg are described as both having belonged to the 3rd Virginia. The color, rather than the image on the flag, was the most important thing on a smoky battlefield battlefield. These flags were used to help soldiers of a regiment stay together. Men of the 8th were to stay by the salmon-colored flag. Men of the 3rd, by this one (or a blue one). The two that were displayed in Williamsburg only say "regiment," without a number. This suggests that they were manufactured generically in various colors and that the regimental numbers were intended to be added later, but weren't in all cases. Images of the other flags displayed at Williamsburg can be seen at this link. If anyone knows more about this, please share!
is researching the history of the Revolutionary War's 8th Virginia Regiment. Its ten companies formed on the frontier, from the Cumberland Gap to Pittsburgh.
© 2015-2020 Gabriel Neville | 2,495 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Pages that link here:
LZ 129 Hindenburg was one of the largest airships in the history and a marvel of technology at the time. It was able to pass the Atlantic faster than fastest transatlantic ships and it did 34 times. It also marked the end of the Era of the Zeppelins.
The Zeppelin LZ 11 was a German civilian and military rigid airship. It was first flown on 19 February 1912 as DELAG’s passenger-carrying aircraft. Later it was used as military airship. LZ 11 was broke apart while being put into its hangar on 1 October 1915. Read more about LZ 11.
The Zeppelin LZ 10 - Schwaben was called the "lucky airship" because she was more successful than any of the previous craft that DELAG had put into service. Also it was the first commercially successful passenger aircraft in history. LZ 10 - Schwaben made 218 flights, transporting 1,553 passengers including Crown Prince Wilhelm and his wife. Read more about LZ 10.
The Zeppelin LZ 6 was German experimental passenger-carrying airship. Its design included first experiments with wireless communication. LZ 6 was a first airship for DELAG – German Airship Transport Company. It was accidentally destroyed by fire in its hangar at Oos, Baden-Baden on 14 September 1910. Read more about LZ 6. | <urn:uuid:ed0a3a55-77d0-4969-8a7c-4b5e64f42079> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.zeppelinhistory.com/picture/picture-of-lz-129-hindenburg/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00034.warc.gz | en | 0.985528 | 289 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.21237385272979736,
0.4409446716308594,
0.17701098322868347,
-0.230796679854393,
0.009239320643246174,
-0.08176898211240768,
0.14605221152305603,
0.37369757890701294,
-0.15478059649467468,
-0.5324946045875549,
0.1037663072347641,
-0.05930476263165474,
-0.1503235101699829,
0.4020267426967... | 1 | Pages that link here:
LZ 129 Hindenburg was one of the largest airships in the history and a marvel of technology at the time. It was able to pass the Atlantic faster than fastest transatlantic ships and it did 34 times. It also marked the end of the Era of the Zeppelins.
The Zeppelin LZ 11 was a German civilian and military rigid airship. It was first flown on 19 February 1912 as DELAG’s passenger-carrying aircraft. Later it was used as military airship. LZ 11 was broke apart while being put into its hangar on 1 October 1915. Read more about LZ 11.
The Zeppelin LZ 10 - Schwaben was called the "lucky airship" because she was more successful than any of the previous craft that DELAG had put into service. Also it was the first commercially successful passenger aircraft in history. LZ 10 - Schwaben made 218 flights, transporting 1,553 passengers including Crown Prince Wilhelm and his wife. Read more about LZ 10.
The Zeppelin LZ 6 was German experimental passenger-carrying airship. Its design included first experiments with wireless communication. LZ 6 was a first airship for DELAG – German Airship Transport Company. It was accidentally destroyed by fire in its hangar at Oos, Baden-Baden on 14 September 1910. Read more about LZ 6. | 318 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What is Withholding?
Withholding tax refers to process of deducting taxation from an a payment to a person, and paying this over to the government on their behalf. Governments use this method of withholding tax in order to minimize the risk of tax evasion and to reduce the costs of collection.
For example and employer normally deducts tax from an employees pay or a business will deduct tax from a dividend payment before paying the shareholder. The deduction is paid over to the government and treated as an on account payment by the person towards their final tax liability.
About the Author
Chartered accountant Michael Brown is the founder and CEO of Double Entry Bookkeeping. He has worked as an accountant and consultant for more than 25 years in all types of industries. He has been the CFO or controller of both small and medium sized companies and has run small businesses of his own. He has been a manager and an auditor with Deloitte, a big 4 accountancy firm, and holds a BSc from Loughborough University. | <urn:uuid:1b0339ea-122d-4bb5-89cd-1b016f6d5bbc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.double-entry-bookkeeping.com/other-liabilities/withholding/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00075.warc.gz | en | 0.98363 | 206 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.3575662076473236,
0.20624905824661255,
0.03950925171375275,
-0.050538044422864914,
0.2687305212020874,
-0.1848209947347641,
0.694514274597168,
-0.10742847621440887,
0.10600106418132782,
0.10500968247652054,
0.3865763545036316,
-0.31166136264801025,
-0.27125853300094604,
0.37947037816047... | 1 | What is Withholding?
Withholding tax refers to process of deducting taxation from an a payment to a person, and paying this over to the government on their behalf. Governments use this method of withholding tax in order to minimize the risk of tax evasion and to reduce the costs of collection.
For example and employer normally deducts tax from an employees pay or a business will deduct tax from a dividend payment before paying the shareholder. The deduction is paid over to the government and treated as an on account payment by the person towards their final tax liability.
About the Author
Chartered accountant Michael Brown is the founder and CEO of Double Entry Bookkeeping. He has worked as an accountant and consultant for more than 25 years in all types of industries. He has been the CFO or controller of both small and medium sized companies and has run small businesses of his own. He has been a manager and an auditor with Deloitte, a big 4 accountancy firm, and holds a BSc from Loughborough University. | 205 | ENGLISH | 1 |
When did the church first ordain women?
Women served as preachers from the beginnings of the Methodist movement.
Mary Bosanquet Fletcher (1739-1815) was an early lay preacher credited with convincing John Wesley that some women should be allowed to preach.
Women were ordained as ministers as early as the late 19th century.
In 1866, Helenor M. Davisson was ordained a deacon in the Methodist Protestant Church.
Anna Howard Shaw, after being refused ordination by the General Conference of the Methodist-Episcopal Church in 1880, that same year joined the Methodist Protestant Church and was ordained by its New York Annual Conference.
Ella Niswonger was the first woman granted full clergy rights by the United Brethren Church in 1889.
In 1956, The Methodist Church granted women full clergy rights.
Maude Jensen became the first female full clergy member of the Central Pennsylvania Conference shortly after the 1956 General Conference met. Twenty-six additional women were received as full clergy members that year.
This content was produced by Ask The UMC, a ministry of United Methodist Communications. | <urn:uuid:c64ec7f3-5375-4add-9644-f74ab305e128> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-when-did-the-church-first-ordain-women | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00229.warc.gz | en | 0.981306 | 228 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.1759800761938095,
0.25421035289764404,
-0.03823906555771828,
-0.15691635012626648,
0.0018639221088960767,
0.3943224549293518,
-0.6289704442024231,
0.07700557261705399,
-0.00889918114989996,
-0.051760636270046234,
0.0008096715901046991,
0.16352374851703644,
0.20592541992664337,
-0.035536... | 11 | When did the church first ordain women?
Women served as preachers from the beginnings of the Methodist movement.
Mary Bosanquet Fletcher (1739-1815) was an early lay preacher credited with convincing John Wesley that some women should be allowed to preach.
Women were ordained as ministers as early as the late 19th century.
In 1866, Helenor M. Davisson was ordained a deacon in the Methodist Protestant Church.
Anna Howard Shaw, after being refused ordination by the General Conference of the Methodist-Episcopal Church in 1880, that same year joined the Methodist Protestant Church and was ordained by its New York Annual Conference.
Ella Niswonger was the first woman granted full clergy rights by the United Brethren Church in 1889.
In 1956, The Methodist Church granted women full clergy rights.
Maude Jensen became the first female full clergy member of the Central Pennsylvania Conference shortly after the 1956 General Conference met. Twenty-six additional women were received as full clergy members that year.
This content was produced by Ask The UMC, a ministry of United Methodist Communications. | 243 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Originally published October 2010.
The Celtic Church
By the 6th century the Christian church in Ireland had become organized in a system of monastic “federations” connected to a mother house. By the 7th century this system appears to have replaced the Diocesan system, giving authority to the abbot of the monastery rather than to a Bishop. Bishops still had high status due to their ecclesiastical roles, and territorial bishops did exist, but much of the administration of the church was in the hands of the abbots.
As a result of its remoteness and the own organizational style the Irish church had an air of an autonomous, and self-confident institution. So much so, that Columbanus, the first Irish missionary to continental Europe, wrote a letter to Pope Gregory about AD 600 in which he chastised the pope for views which did not agree with Irish doctrine. Even though Christianity had come to Ireland from Gaul, he discovered a church with significant differences resulting in conflicts between Columbanus and the local bishops. A number of Episcopal synods were held which condemned Irish Christian practices. The were criticized for their method of calculating the date of Easter, their liturgical and ritual practices, and resistance to local episcopal control of the leadership by local bishops.
All monks of the period, and often most clergy, kept a distinct tonsure, or method of cutting their hair to show their social status. The “Roman” custom was to shave a circle at the top of the head, leaving a ring of hair eventually symbolizing the Crown of Thorns. The Irish tradition was to shave the hair above the forehead and in front of a line drawn from ear to ear.
In Ireland a distinctive form of penance developed. After confession was made privately to a priest, penance was given privately and ordinarily performed privately as well. In antiquity however, penance had been a public ritual. Penitents were separated from the rest of the congregation during worship, and came to mass wearing sackcloth and ashes that often involved some form of general confession. (Although it seems that for some sins, private penance was allowed.) Nonetheless, penance and reconciliation was usually a public rite, which included absolution at its conclusion. The Irish penitential practice seems to have been introduced by Columbanus and it spread throughout the continent, where public penance had been falling into disuse.
Another tradition common across the Celtic world was the concept of peregrinatio por Christo, or “exile for Christ”. The term peregrinatio is a Latin term referring to the state of living, or traveling away from your homeland. It was used by early Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine of Hippo, who wrote that Christians should live a life of peregrinatio in the material world while awaiting the Kingdom of God. Augustine’s version of peregrinatio spread widely throughout the Christian church, but it took two unique meanings in Celtic countries. The first version used a permanent or temporary peregrinatio as penance for certain sins. Additionally, there was a tradition of undertaking a voluntary peregrinatio por Christo, in which individuals permanently left their homes and put themselves entirely in God’s hands. Peregrini, or exiles of this kind were often seeking personal spiritual fulfillment, but many became involved in missionary endeavors. For example both of the Irishmen Columba and Columbanus similarly founded highly important religious communities after leaving their homes.
The Celtic Christian church gradually was brought in to orthodoxy with the Roman church as the Papacy gained increasing influence and Gregorian Reforms accelerated the process. | <urn:uuid:a58592c9-abbf-49d5-bcbe-13fc4774b67a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.kilts-n-stuff.com/Blog/the-celtic-church/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00490.warc.gz | en | 0.983189 | 748 | 3.84375 | 4 | [
0.050593070685863495,
0.04481731355190277,
-0.014037242159247398,
-0.10139794647693634,
-0.2861650884151459,
-0.3061077296733856,
0.03271942213177681,
-0.21038396656513214,
0.5353442430496216,
-0.229373499751091,
-0.3911574184894562,
-0.024056028574705124,
0.0903719812631607,
0.24884666502... | 1 | Originally published October 2010.
The Celtic Church
By the 6th century the Christian church in Ireland had become organized in a system of monastic “federations” connected to a mother house. By the 7th century this system appears to have replaced the Diocesan system, giving authority to the abbot of the monastery rather than to a Bishop. Bishops still had high status due to their ecclesiastical roles, and territorial bishops did exist, but much of the administration of the church was in the hands of the abbots.
As a result of its remoteness and the own organizational style the Irish church had an air of an autonomous, and self-confident institution. So much so, that Columbanus, the first Irish missionary to continental Europe, wrote a letter to Pope Gregory about AD 600 in which he chastised the pope for views which did not agree with Irish doctrine. Even though Christianity had come to Ireland from Gaul, he discovered a church with significant differences resulting in conflicts between Columbanus and the local bishops. A number of Episcopal synods were held which condemned Irish Christian practices. The were criticized for their method of calculating the date of Easter, their liturgical and ritual practices, and resistance to local episcopal control of the leadership by local bishops.
All monks of the period, and often most clergy, kept a distinct tonsure, or method of cutting their hair to show their social status. The “Roman” custom was to shave a circle at the top of the head, leaving a ring of hair eventually symbolizing the Crown of Thorns. The Irish tradition was to shave the hair above the forehead and in front of a line drawn from ear to ear.
In Ireland a distinctive form of penance developed. After confession was made privately to a priest, penance was given privately and ordinarily performed privately as well. In antiquity however, penance had been a public ritual. Penitents were separated from the rest of the congregation during worship, and came to mass wearing sackcloth and ashes that often involved some form of general confession. (Although it seems that for some sins, private penance was allowed.) Nonetheless, penance and reconciliation was usually a public rite, which included absolution at its conclusion. The Irish penitential practice seems to have been introduced by Columbanus and it spread throughout the continent, where public penance had been falling into disuse.
Another tradition common across the Celtic world was the concept of peregrinatio por Christo, or “exile for Christ”. The term peregrinatio is a Latin term referring to the state of living, or traveling away from your homeland. It was used by early Church Fathers such as Saint Augustine of Hippo, who wrote that Christians should live a life of peregrinatio in the material world while awaiting the Kingdom of God. Augustine’s version of peregrinatio spread widely throughout the Christian church, but it took two unique meanings in Celtic countries. The first version used a permanent or temporary peregrinatio as penance for certain sins. Additionally, there was a tradition of undertaking a voluntary peregrinatio por Christo, in which individuals permanently left their homes and put themselves entirely in God’s hands. Peregrini, or exiles of this kind were often seeking personal spiritual fulfillment, but many became involved in missionary endeavors. For example both of the Irishmen Columba and Columbanus similarly founded highly important religious communities after leaving their homes.
The Celtic Christian church gradually was brought in to orthodoxy with the Roman church as the Papacy gained increasing influence and Gregorian Reforms accelerated the process. | 747 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Albrecht Dürer facts for kids
|Dürer's self-portrait at 26|
|Born||21 May 1471
Nuremberg, Holy Roman Empire
|Died||6 April 1528
Nuremberg, Holy Roman Empire
His prints were often in a series, so that there is a group of different prints about a subject. The most famous series are the Apocalypse (1498) and his two series on the passion of Christ, the Great Passion (1498–1510) and the Little Passion (1510–1511).
Dürer's best known individual engravings (that is, ones that are not part of a series) include Knight, Death, and the Devil (1513), Saint Jerome in his Study (1514) and Melencolia I (1514). He painted a number of religious works in oils and made many brilliant watercolours and drawings, which through modern reproductions are now perhaps his best known works.
His most iconic images are his woodcuts of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1497–1498) from the Apocalypse series, the Rhinoceros, and numerous self-portraits in oils. Dürer possibly did not cut his own woodblocks but may have employed a skilled carver who followed his drawings faithfully.
Dürer's prints made him famous across Europe before he was 30, and many people say he is the greatest artist of the Renaissance in Northern Europe.
Albrecht Dürer has been credited with inventing the basic principle of ray tracing, a technique used in modern computer graphics.
Dürer's godfather was Anton Koberger, who left goldsmithing to become a printer and publisher in the year Dürer was born. He quickly became the most successful publisher in Germany, and owned twenty-four printing presses and had many offices in Germany and abroad. His most famous publication was the Nuremberg Chronicle, published in 1493 in German and Latin. It had 1,809 woodcut pictures by the Wolgemut workshop. Dürer may well have worked on some of these, as the work on the project began while he was with Wolgemut.
Dürer had started to learn goldsmithing and drawing from his father. His father wanted him to continue his training as a goldsmith, but he was so good at drawing that he started as an apprentice to Michael Wolgemut at the age of fifteen in 1486. Wolgemut was the leading artist in Nuremberg at the time, and had a large workshop making different types of works of art, in particular woodcuts for books. Nuremberg was a rich city, a centre for publishing and many luxury trades. It had strong links with Italy, especially Venice, a relatively short distance across the Alps.
After completing his term of apprenticeship in 1489, Dürer followed the common German custom of taking a wanderjahre — in effect a gap year. Dürer was away nearly four years, travelling through Germany, Switzerland, and probably, the Netherlands. Dürer wanted to meet Martin Schongauer, the best engraver of Northern Europe, but Schongauer died shortly before Dürer's arrival. He stayed at the house of Schongauer's brother, and got some pictures that Schongauer owned.
His first painted self-portrait is now in the Louvre. It was painted in Strasbourg, probably so that Dürer could send it back to his fiancée in Nuremberg. In fact, very soon after he got back to Nuremberg, on 7 July 1494 Dürer was married to Agnes Frey.
Within three months Dürer left for Italy. The start of plague in Nuremberg was one reason for his leaving. In Italy, he went to Venice where artists were working in a more modern style. Dürer wrote that Giovanni Bellini was the oldest and still the best of the artists in Venice.
On his return to Nuremberg in 1495, Dürer opened his own workshop. He started to use what he learned in Italy more and more, so his work was quite different from the other artists in Nuremberg who used only the traditional German style.
Dürer was admired by the Venetians, but he was back in Nuremberg by mid-1507. He stayed in Germany until 1520. His reputation had spread throughout Europe. He was on friendly terms with most of the major artists of Europe, and exchanged drawings with Raphael.
Final years in Nuremberg
Back in Nuremberg, Dürer started work on a series of religious pictures. There are many practice sketches and studies (practice paintings for a bigger painting) but no big paintings from this time. This was partly because of his illness, but more because of the time he spent preparing to write books about geometry and perspective.
Dürer died in Nuremberg at the age of 56. He left money and goods worth 6,874 florins - a considerable sum. His workshop was a part of his large house and his widow lived there until her death in 1537. The house is now a museum.
Images for kids
Albrecht Dürer Facts for Kids. Kiddle Encyclopedia. | <urn:uuid:1f6e6e72-4fa2-458f-9e47-81f9bd568a9b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://kids.kiddle.co/Albrecht_D%C3%BCrer | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00359.warc.gz | en | 0.985115 | 1,096 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.006360259838402271,
0.25667935609817505,
0.022104136645793915,
-0.05238073319196701,
-0.10052403807640076,
0.09521664679050446,
-0.20471426844596863,
0.12222154438495636,
-0.05870823189616203,
-0.06561027467250824,
-0.01630670204758644,
-0.5219388008117676,
0.09840811789035797,
0.319171... | 2 | Albrecht Dürer facts for kids
|Dürer's self-portrait at 26|
|Born||21 May 1471
Nuremberg, Holy Roman Empire
|Died||6 April 1528
Nuremberg, Holy Roman Empire
His prints were often in a series, so that there is a group of different prints about a subject. The most famous series are the Apocalypse (1498) and his two series on the passion of Christ, the Great Passion (1498–1510) and the Little Passion (1510–1511).
Dürer's best known individual engravings (that is, ones that are not part of a series) include Knight, Death, and the Devil (1513), Saint Jerome in his Study (1514) and Melencolia I (1514). He painted a number of religious works in oils and made many brilliant watercolours and drawings, which through modern reproductions are now perhaps his best known works.
His most iconic images are his woodcuts of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1497–1498) from the Apocalypse series, the Rhinoceros, and numerous self-portraits in oils. Dürer possibly did not cut his own woodblocks but may have employed a skilled carver who followed his drawings faithfully.
Dürer's prints made him famous across Europe before he was 30, and many people say he is the greatest artist of the Renaissance in Northern Europe.
Albrecht Dürer has been credited with inventing the basic principle of ray tracing, a technique used in modern computer graphics.
Dürer's godfather was Anton Koberger, who left goldsmithing to become a printer and publisher in the year Dürer was born. He quickly became the most successful publisher in Germany, and owned twenty-four printing presses and had many offices in Germany and abroad. His most famous publication was the Nuremberg Chronicle, published in 1493 in German and Latin. It had 1,809 woodcut pictures by the Wolgemut workshop. Dürer may well have worked on some of these, as the work on the project began while he was with Wolgemut.
Dürer had started to learn goldsmithing and drawing from his father. His father wanted him to continue his training as a goldsmith, but he was so good at drawing that he started as an apprentice to Michael Wolgemut at the age of fifteen in 1486. Wolgemut was the leading artist in Nuremberg at the time, and had a large workshop making different types of works of art, in particular woodcuts for books. Nuremberg was a rich city, a centre for publishing and many luxury trades. It had strong links with Italy, especially Venice, a relatively short distance across the Alps.
After completing his term of apprenticeship in 1489, Dürer followed the common German custom of taking a wanderjahre — in effect a gap year. Dürer was away nearly four years, travelling through Germany, Switzerland, and probably, the Netherlands. Dürer wanted to meet Martin Schongauer, the best engraver of Northern Europe, but Schongauer died shortly before Dürer's arrival. He stayed at the house of Schongauer's brother, and got some pictures that Schongauer owned.
His first painted self-portrait is now in the Louvre. It was painted in Strasbourg, probably so that Dürer could send it back to his fiancée in Nuremberg. In fact, very soon after he got back to Nuremberg, on 7 July 1494 Dürer was married to Agnes Frey.
Within three months Dürer left for Italy. The start of plague in Nuremberg was one reason for his leaving. In Italy, he went to Venice where artists were working in a more modern style. Dürer wrote that Giovanni Bellini was the oldest and still the best of the artists in Venice.
On his return to Nuremberg in 1495, Dürer opened his own workshop. He started to use what he learned in Italy more and more, so his work was quite different from the other artists in Nuremberg who used only the traditional German style.
Dürer was admired by the Venetians, but he was back in Nuremberg by mid-1507. He stayed in Germany until 1520. His reputation had spread throughout Europe. He was on friendly terms with most of the major artists of Europe, and exchanged drawings with Raphael.
Final years in Nuremberg
Back in Nuremberg, Dürer started work on a series of religious pictures. There are many practice sketches and studies (practice paintings for a bigger painting) but no big paintings from this time. This was partly because of his illness, but more because of the time he spent preparing to write books about geometry and perspective.
Dürer died in Nuremberg at the age of 56. He left money and goods worth 6,874 florins - a considerable sum. His workshop was a part of his large house and his widow lived there until her death in 1537. The house is now a museum.
Images for kids
Albrecht Dürer Facts for Kids. Kiddle Encyclopedia. | 1,152 | ENGLISH | 1 |
‘than’ used with comparatives
Than is mainly used after comparative adjectives and adverbs.
I am happier than I have ever been.
They had to work harder than expected.
If you use a personal pronoun on its own after than, it must be an object pronoun such as me or him.
My brother is younger than me.
Lamin was shorter than her.
However, if the pronoun is the subject of a clause, you use a subject pronoun.
They knew my past much better than she did.
He's taller than I am.
You can also use ever or ever before after than. For example, if you say that something is ‘bigger than ever’ or ‘bigger than ever before’, you are emphasizing that it has never been as big as it is now, although it has always been big.
Bill worked harder than ever.
He was now managing a bigger team than ever before.
Be careful Comparative and superlative adjectives
Comparative and superlative adverbs
Don't use ‘than’ when you are making comparisons using not as or not so. Don't say, for example, ‘He is not as tall than his sister’. You say ‘He is not as tall as his sister’.
You use more than to say that the number of people or things in a group is greater than a particular number.
We live in a city of more than a million people.
There are more than two hundred and fifty species of shark.
You can also use more than in front of some adjectives as a way of emphasizing them. For example, instead of saying ‘If you can come, I shall be very pleased’, you can say ‘If you can come, I shall be more than pleased’. This is a fairly formal use.
I am more than satisfied with my achievements in Australia.
You would be more than welcome.
You use rather than when you want to compare something that is the case with something that is not.
The company's offices are in London rather than in Nottingham.
She was angry rather than afraid. | <urn:uuid:2628ac30-670e-47cd-a2fb-f41ff2dfacf3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www2.wordreference.com/EnglishUsage/than | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00129.warc.gz | en | 0.980848 | 457 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.19872605800628662,
-0.06363841146230698,
-0.10261816531419754,
-0.17990721762180328,
-0.043229859322309494,
0.12535466253757477,
0.62369304895401,
0.16323387622833252,
0.4666122794151306,
-0.41801583766937256,
0.20586392283439636,
-0.20135115087032318,
0.4064675569534302,
0.112479217350... | 1 | ‘than’ used with comparatives
Than is mainly used after comparative adjectives and adverbs.
I am happier than I have ever been.
They had to work harder than expected.
If you use a personal pronoun on its own after than, it must be an object pronoun such as me or him.
My brother is younger than me.
Lamin was shorter than her.
However, if the pronoun is the subject of a clause, you use a subject pronoun.
They knew my past much better than she did.
He's taller than I am.
You can also use ever or ever before after than. For example, if you say that something is ‘bigger than ever’ or ‘bigger than ever before’, you are emphasizing that it has never been as big as it is now, although it has always been big.
Bill worked harder than ever.
He was now managing a bigger team than ever before.
Be careful Comparative and superlative adjectives
Comparative and superlative adverbs
Don't use ‘than’ when you are making comparisons using not as or not so. Don't say, for example, ‘He is not as tall than his sister’. You say ‘He is not as tall as his sister’.
You use more than to say that the number of people or things in a group is greater than a particular number.
We live in a city of more than a million people.
There are more than two hundred and fifty species of shark.
You can also use more than in front of some adjectives as a way of emphasizing them. For example, instead of saying ‘If you can come, I shall be very pleased’, you can say ‘If you can come, I shall be more than pleased’. This is a fairly formal use.
I am more than satisfied with my achievements in Australia.
You would be more than welcome.
You use rather than when you want to compare something that is the case with something that is not.
The company's offices are in London rather than in Nottingham.
She was angry rather than afraid. | 418 | ENGLISH | 1 |
57,000 German prisoners march to Moscow after defeat at Belarus during “Operation Bagration”, 17 July 1944.
Operation Bagration – the Soviet destruction of German Army Group Center – was, arguably, the single most successful military action of the entire war. This vital Soviet offensive was launched just after Allied troops had landed in Normandy, and it is symptomatic of the lack of public knowledge about the war in the East that whilst almost everyone has heard of D-Day, few people other than specialist historians know much about Operation Bagration. Yet the sheer size of Bagration dwarfs that of D-Day. Operation Bagration (named after a Georgian hero in the war against Napoleon 130 years earlier) was not just one of the largest military offensives of the war, it was one of the most sophisticated. On 19 June 1944, Red Army partisan units, operating behind German lines, attacked transport and other Wehrmacht supply lines; two days later the Soviets launched massive air attacks; and then on the 23rd (one day after the third anniversary of the German invasion) the Red Army moved forward under cover of darkness.
Their advance caught the Germans by surprise. Once again, the Soviet technique of ‘maskirovka’ (deception) had worked. The Soviets pushed forward in powerful spearheads leaving enemy units isolated behind them – a tactic that was made all the more effective because of a tactically disastrous decision Hitler had made. The German leader had ordered the soldiers of Army Group Center to stand firm and inflexible in the face of any Soviet advance. His directive of 8 March 1944 had announced that ‘feste Plaetze’ (fortified places) should be the core of the German defense. The idea was that the Soviets would advance past these fortifications, which would, Hitler said, “fulfill the function of fortresses in former historical times”. The commander of the German Ninth Army, General Jordan could scarcely believe the nature of the order he had been given..
“Ninth Army stands on the eve of another great battle”, he wrote, “unpredictable in extent and duration the Army believes that, even under the present conditions, it would be possible to stop the enemy offensive, but not under the present directives which require an absolutely rigid defense”. “Hitler’s orders to hold firm were totally disastrous”, confirms Antony Beevor. “He refused to allow his generals any flexibility or leeway which was totally contrary to all the precepts and the teaching of the German general staff… but because Hitler so distrusted his generals he wanted to control everything and that was basically the undoing of the German army”. “The German behavior in their fortified areas was stupid”, says Veniamin Fyodorov, who participated in the initial Soviet assault in Operation Bagration. “Our shelling broke them down. Huge amounts of shells flew towards them and you couldn’t hear anything: only this booming! The fortified areas could be smashed completely. It was death… The Germans held the ground to the last man – they were all doomed to death” | <urn:uuid:62d5f3e4-51b0-424d-8fd6-27c320b2432c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thevintagenews.com/2015/10/29/sad-fate-german-prisoners-march-to-moscow-after-defeat-at-belarus-during-operation-bagration-17-july-1944/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00317.warc.gz | en | 0.980309 | 655 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.10677328705787659,
0.22082555294036865,
0.03464832901954651,
-0.000831039622426033,
0.043146245181560516,
-0.25839537382125854,
0.3043406009674072,
0.4193994998931885,
-0.41930919885635376,
-0.030990106984972954,
0.044171854853630066,
-0.1489279568195343,
0.45731544494628906,
0.66104221... | 6 | 57,000 German prisoners march to Moscow after defeat at Belarus during “Operation Bagration”, 17 July 1944.
Operation Bagration – the Soviet destruction of German Army Group Center – was, arguably, the single most successful military action of the entire war. This vital Soviet offensive was launched just after Allied troops had landed in Normandy, and it is symptomatic of the lack of public knowledge about the war in the East that whilst almost everyone has heard of D-Day, few people other than specialist historians know much about Operation Bagration. Yet the sheer size of Bagration dwarfs that of D-Day. Operation Bagration (named after a Georgian hero in the war against Napoleon 130 years earlier) was not just one of the largest military offensives of the war, it was one of the most sophisticated. On 19 June 1944, Red Army partisan units, operating behind German lines, attacked transport and other Wehrmacht supply lines; two days later the Soviets launched massive air attacks; and then on the 23rd (one day after the third anniversary of the German invasion) the Red Army moved forward under cover of darkness.
Their advance caught the Germans by surprise. Once again, the Soviet technique of ‘maskirovka’ (deception) had worked. The Soviets pushed forward in powerful spearheads leaving enemy units isolated behind them – a tactic that was made all the more effective because of a tactically disastrous decision Hitler had made. The German leader had ordered the soldiers of Army Group Center to stand firm and inflexible in the face of any Soviet advance. His directive of 8 March 1944 had announced that ‘feste Plaetze’ (fortified places) should be the core of the German defense. The idea was that the Soviets would advance past these fortifications, which would, Hitler said, “fulfill the function of fortresses in former historical times”. The commander of the German Ninth Army, General Jordan could scarcely believe the nature of the order he had been given..
“Ninth Army stands on the eve of another great battle”, he wrote, “unpredictable in extent and duration the Army believes that, even under the present conditions, it would be possible to stop the enemy offensive, but not under the present directives which require an absolutely rigid defense”. “Hitler’s orders to hold firm were totally disastrous”, confirms Antony Beevor. “He refused to allow his generals any flexibility or leeway which was totally contrary to all the precepts and the teaching of the German general staff… but because Hitler so distrusted his generals he wanted to control everything and that was basically the undoing of the German army”. “The German behavior in their fortified areas was stupid”, says Veniamin Fyodorov, who participated in the initial Soviet assault in Operation Bagration. “Our shelling broke them down. Huge amounts of shells flew towards them and you couldn’t hear anything: only this booming! The fortified areas could be smashed completely. It was death… The Germans held the ground to the last man – they were all doomed to death” | 641 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Great Depression occurred in the 1930’s and it still remains an important occurrence in American economy and history to date. This happened to be the worst form of economic depression to be experienced ever in the history of America attributed majorly to loss of confidence in the American economy. There was massive hardship throughout the land for millions of people as well as collapse of a large percentage of banks, businesses and even farms. The Roaring 20’s preceded the Great Depression and it was the time of the discovery of the stock market and Americans became pioneers as they took a competitive advantage through investment of much of their wealth in stock. Prior to the crash of the stock market, most of the US citizens were busy investing in the stock market with high speculations of making quick profits (Walton and Rockoff 380).
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Prosperity was being experienced in America due to emergence of new industries and new methods of production due to its great supply of raw materials for production of steel, glass, chemicals and machinery that boosted production of consumer goods. This resulted to high rate of employment, increase in loans from banks and flourishing of the stock market. The presence of a harsh economic downturn for several years was attributed to the high rate of unemployment and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) really fall. The cause of depression goes back to the 1920’s, when the demand for products was high and this led to overproduction of goods that surpassed its demand in the market (Parker 7). In effect, there was slowdown in most of the production sectors including agriculture. Millions of people lost their jobs
The Causes of the Great Depression
The causes of the Great Depression were a combination of domestic and global economic conditions. The impact of this depression was felt all over the world, for instance, the rise of extremism in Germany, led to the New Deal in America what considered to be the major contributing factor to the World War II. The major cause includes: the stock market crash of 1929, bank failures, reduction in purchasing across the board, drought and American economic policy with Europe.
The Stock Market Crash of 1929: Most of the Americans had invested a lot of their resources in the stock market as it was the easy way of making profits in the 1920’s. People could buy as much shares and stock as long as they pay for at least 10% of the total amount. This was facilitated by the ever rising price of shares in the stock market, thus attracting wealthy investors. During the occurrence of the great depression many investors lost more than ten times the amount of money they had invested in the stock market. The collapse of the stock market was terrible as it inflicted fear in people as they all rush to take their investment from the stock market (Walton and Rockoff 397). The stock market crash made stockbrokers to loss over $40 billion dollars in just two months time.
Failure of Banks: In 1930’s, banks did not insure the deposits of their customers and the moment a bank collapse, mny people lost their savings. The one’s that survived the depression stopped advancing loans to customers, since they were uncertain of the economic situations and this led to increasingly less expenditures. As a result, the supply became more than demand of products in the market. Most of the banks in America were not able to survive the depression and this led to their collapse. As the stock market collapsed, people rushed to banks to collect their money and instead of keeping them with banks, they opted to keep them in their homesteads. More than 9,000 banks were affected. To make matters worse, banks rushed to hold properties of loan defaulters, but they faced problems in auctioning them, since people opted not to purchase them due to increase in financial insecurity. They ended up with more assets but without cash.
The American Economic Policy with Europe: this time saw the American government creating policies that will offer protection to its home companies since businesses were failing. In effect, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was created during the depression. This saw increase taxation on imports thus low trade between America and other foreign countries, which responded in a retaliatory move (Parker 8). Further, the crash wiped out people’s investments thus shaking the public. The difficulty in advancing loans due to inflation and lack of investors made banks to incur major losses. Moreover, the absence of deposit insurance led to contagion spread of panics to sound financial institutions.
The crash of the stock market and uncertainty in the economy made people of all classes to eschew from purchasing items. This led to wastage and major losses to companies that had invested a lot of their resources in those products. The effect of this was reduction in production, massive unemployment as companies could not support huge workforce. Items, which were bought through installments, were repossessed as people who had lost their jobs were unable to keep on paying for them leading to increased inventory. The higher rate of unemployment which was above 25% made it hard for the economic situation to be alleviated (Walton and Rockoff 432). Mississippi valley was hit by a long time drought which was extreme to the extent that people were not able to pay taxes or even their debt. Some even attempted to sell their property hoping it will help them, but it was not helpful to them.
Why did the Great Depression last so long?
The Great Depression took a considerably longer time than previous forms of depression that had once hit America and the world at large. To begin with, the American government cut the supply of money by nearly a third. This move really chocked the recovery process given that many banks that were suffering liquidity problems were not able to stand the depression and in return they just went under. Although the initial aim was to weed out some banks, the act affected the recovery process thus making it take a considerable longer time than expected. The government mismanaged the economic situation leading to the great depression. Secondly, the president in his attempt of halting the recession after the stocck market crash ensured that prices of products are high yet wages of workers are low (Walton and Rockoff 397).
The creation of the New Deal, which however backfired leading to more years of unemployment, low wages and high prices of products for a period of about three years. The New Deal aimed at maintaining public works, healthy wages and full employment through effective production controls based on Keynesian theory. However, it was affected by mismanagement, politics and wastage in the government run initiatives. In a nut shell, the Great Depression was a combination of economic factors which could either be changed or avoided incase one of these was changed (Parker 3).
The excessive tightening of the money in supply by the Federal Reserve Board did not succeed in saving the economy given that it accelerated and lengthened the depression. The monetary policy forms the major cause of the Great Depression since monetary expansion could have countered recession and in return depression could have been avoided in the world. A structural change in the real economy resulted to the great decline of agricultural prices as well as incomes, which according to President Hoover was a greater productivity. As companies cut down on its workforce, demand for agricultural produce also diminished and this drove prices much lower. As such, the value of assets decreased as people’s income was low. This decline in farm income made the New Deal ineffective in saving the economy from the depression crisis (Walton and Rockoff 453).
In the 1920’s, buying on credit was the problem. Many people did not take the future into consideration due to the great economic boom. People chose to live luxuriously on credit and this was facilitated by installment buying on most of the products. During the crisis, lenders repossessed items in case the borrowers skipped some payments and millions of Americans were affected. Additionally, people feared making new purchases so that they may clear their debt first and this led to a drop in the consumer spending. In effect, nations were unable to repay their debts as well as farmers and businesses due to lower prices of products and also assets. Uneven distribution of income and wealth: To begin with, in times when the economy of America was booming, not all citizens of the country were participating in the boom given that about 60% of American citizens were living below the poverty line (Walton and Rockoff 429). Hence, the wealthy continued to prosper while the poor became poorer due to unequal wealth distribution.
In conclusion, the Great Depression is an attribute of the stock market crash in October, 1929 that led to closing of banks and factories, higher rate of unemployment, plummeting of the stock values, shattering the public confidence and wiping out of stockholders. Restrictions on new loans arose from the ever rising debt and this meant more bankruptcies, lower prices, scarce credit and less borrowing. In addition, the uneven distribution of income and wealth, failures of banks, government’s interventions and low income of farmers contributed to the lengthening of the 1930 Great Depression.
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:fbe86c84-18d1-43e1-b222-b3bbc69eec60> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://essaysexperts.com/essays/history/history-of-the-american-economy.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00218.warc.gz | en | 0.981474 | 1,882 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.03892693668603897,
0.3094981908798218,
0.16561640799045563,
0.24145925045013428,
0.02998504601418972,
0.20615053176879883,
-0.054823387414216995,
0.09838612377643585,
-0.16175179183483124,
-0.32730722427368164,
0.35774868726730347,
0.45008420944213867,
0.33268874883651733,
0.20589041709... | 1 | The Great Depression occurred in the 1930’s and it still remains an important occurrence in American economy and history to date. This happened to be the worst form of economic depression to be experienced ever in the history of America attributed majorly to loss of confidence in the American economy. There was massive hardship throughout the land for millions of people as well as collapse of a large percentage of banks, businesses and even farms. The Roaring 20’s preceded the Great Depression and it was the time of the discovery of the stock market and Americans became pioneers as they took a competitive advantage through investment of much of their wealth in stock. Prior to the crash of the stock market, most of the US citizens were busy investing in the stock market with high speculations of making quick profits (Walton and Rockoff 380).
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Prosperity was being experienced in America due to emergence of new industries and new methods of production due to its great supply of raw materials for production of steel, glass, chemicals and machinery that boosted production of consumer goods. This resulted to high rate of employment, increase in loans from banks and flourishing of the stock market. The presence of a harsh economic downturn for several years was attributed to the high rate of unemployment and the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) really fall. The cause of depression goes back to the 1920’s, when the demand for products was high and this led to overproduction of goods that surpassed its demand in the market (Parker 7). In effect, there was slowdown in most of the production sectors including agriculture. Millions of people lost their jobs
The Causes of the Great Depression
The causes of the Great Depression were a combination of domestic and global economic conditions. The impact of this depression was felt all over the world, for instance, the rise of extremism in Germany, led to the New Deal in America what considered to be the major contributing factor to the World War II. The major cause includes: the stock market crash of 1929, bank failures, reduction in purchasing across the board, drought and American economic policy with Europe.
The Stock Market Crash of 1929: Most of the Americans had invested a lot of their resources in the stock market as it was the easy way of making profits in the 1920’s. People could buy as much shares and stock as long as they pay for at least 10% of the total amount. This was facilitated by the ever rising price of shares in the stock market, thus attracting wealthy investors. During the occurrence of the great depression many investors lost more than ten times the amount of money they had invested in the stock market. The collapse of the stock market was terrible as it inflicted fear in people as they all rush to take their investment from the stock market (Walton and Rockoff 397). The stock market crash made stockbrokers to loss over $40 billion dollars in just two months time.
Failure of Banks: In 1930’s, banks did not insure the deposits of their customers and the moment a bank collapse, mny people lost their savings. The one’s that survived the depression stopped advancing loans to customers, since they were uncertain of the economic situations and this led to increasingly less expenditures. As a result, the supply became more than demand of products in the market. Most of the banks in America were not able to survive the depression and this led to their collapse. As the stock market collapsed, people rushed to banks to collect their money and instead of keeping them with banks, they opted to keep them in their homesteads. More than 9,000 banks were affected. To make matters worse, banks rushed to hold properties of loan defaulters, but they faced problems in auctioning them, since people opted not to purchase them due to increase in financial insecurity. They ended up with more assets but without cash.
The American Economic Policy with Europe: this time saw the American government creating policies that will offer protection to its home companies since businesses were failing. In effect, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was created during the depression. This saw increase taxation on imports thus low trade between America and other foreign countries, which responded in a retaliatory move (Parker 8). Further, the crash wiped out people’s investments thus shaking the public. The difficulty in advancing loans due to inflation and lack of investors made banks to incur major losses. Moreover, the absence of deposit insurance led to contagion spread of panics to sound financial institutions.
The crash of the stock market and uncertainty in the economy made people of all classes to eschew from purchasing items. This led to wastage and major losses to companies that had invested a lot of their resources in those products. The effect of this was reduction in production, massive unemployment as companies could not support huge workforce. Items, which were bought through installments, were repossessed as people who had lost their jobs were unable to keep on paying for them leading to increased inventory. The higher rate of unemployment which was above 25% made it hard for the economic situation to be alleviated (Walton and Rockoff 432). Mississippi valley was hit by a long time drought which was extreme to the extent that people were not able to pay taxes or even their debt. Some even attempted to sell their property hoping it will help them, but it was not helpful to them.
Why did the Great Depression last so long?
The Great Depression took a considerably longer time than previous forms of depression that had once hit America and the world at large. To begin with, the American government cut the supply of money by nearly a third. This move really chocked the recovery process given that many banks that were suffering liquidity problems were not able to stand the depression and in return they just went under. Although the initial aim was to weed out some banks, the act affected the recovery process thus making it take a considerable longer time than expected. The government mismanaged the economic situation leading to the great depression. Secondly, the president in his attempt of halting the recession after the stocck market crash ensured that prices of products are high yet wages of workers are low (Walton and Rockoff 397).
The creation of the New Deal, which however backfired leading to more years of unemployment, low wages and high prices of products for a period of about three years. The New Deal aimed at maintaining public works, healthy wages and full employment through effective production controls based on Keynesian theory. However, it was affected by mismanagement, politics and wastage in the government run initiatives. In a nut shell, the Great Depression was a combination of economic factors which could either be changed or avoided incase one of these was changed (Parker 3).
The excessive tightening of the money in supply by the Federal Reserve Board did not succeed in saving the economy given that it accelerated and lengthened the depression. The monetary policy forms the major cause of the Great Depression since monetary expansion could have countered recession and in return depression could have been avoided in the world. A structural change in the real economy resulted to the great decline of agricultural prices as well as incomes, which according to President Hoover was a greater productivity. As companies cut down on its workforce, demand for agricultural produce also diminished and this drove prices much lower. As such, the value of assets decreased as people’s income was low. This decline in farm income made the New Deal ineffective in saving the economy from the depression crisis (Walton and Rockoff 453).
In the 1920’s, buying on credit was the problem. Many people did not take the future into consideration due to the great economic boom. People chose to live luxuriously on credit and this was facilitated by installment buying on most of the products. During the crisis, lenders repossessed items in case the borrowers skipped some payments and millions of Americans were affected. Additionally, people feared making new purchases so that they may clear their debt first and this led to a drop in the consumer spending. In effect, nations were unable to repay their debts as well as farmers and businesses due to lower prices of products and also assets. Uneven distribution of income and wealth: To begin with, in times when the economy of America was booming, not all citizens of the country were participating in the boom given that about 60% of American citizens were living below the poverty line (Walton and Rockoff 429). Hence, the wealthy continued to prosper while the poor became poorer due to unequal wealth distribution.
In conclusion, the Great Depression is an attribute of the stock market crash in October, 1929 that led to closing of banks and factories, higher rate of unemployment, plummeting of the stock values, shattering the public confidence and wiping out of stockholders. Restrictions on new loans arose from the ever rising debt and this meant more bankruptcies, lower prices, scarce credit and less borrowing. In addition, the uneven distribution of income and wealth, failures of banks, government’s interventions and low income of farmers contributed to the lengthening of the 1930 Great Depression.
Most popular orders | 1,915 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What is the setting of The Scarlet Letter? Why is the setting important to the novel's man vs. society conflict?
The novel The Scarlet Letter is set in the theocratic and patriarchal Puritan society of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The year is 1642, which means that this particular group of colonists settled in the area of Boston, and were part of a second wave of settlers that came from England in 1630 with the purpose of purifying the Church of England.
The specific society to which Hester and Roger Prynne had planned to go and be a part of, offered many opportunities for settlers to start new lives. However, the Puritan rule was in place. This means that, upon arriving to Massachusetts Bay, the colonists had to abide by the rules set by the magistrates. They would also have to be assigned to a spiritual leader, which was essentially a pastor that would watch over their spiritual health. Hester Prynne's assigned spiritual leader, upon her arrival, was Reverend Dimmesdale.
Hester came into the colony alone. Moreover, shortly after her arrival it was thought that her husband, Roger, had been lost at sea and was presumed dead. Also shortly after her arrival, Hester and her pastor begin an affair. It is presumably close enough to her arrival date, since, little thereafter, she becomes pregnant.
When she can no longer hide the pregnancy, she is forced to reveal the name of the father of the child. As she refuses to do so, she is not only punished with the scaffold and prison, but is also mandated to wear the letter "A", for adulterer, on her bosom for the rest of her natural life.
This series of events reveal the conflict of man (or woman) versus society. Hester Prynne arrived in the colony already a loveless wife. When her husband is presumed dead, she engages in a relationship with someone whom she actually loves. To the modern reader, Hester's actions may seem too quick but, considering her situation as someone forced to marry at a young age, they are still understandable.
(The entire section contains 2 answers and 655 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | <urn:uuid:ac0dba25-8101-4607-8756-d99d59e636c4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-setting-scarlet-letter-why-setting-important-131695 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00344.warc.gz | en | 0.983357 | 450 | 4.0625 | 4 | [
-0.07620035856962204,
0.26691851019859314,
0.3231738209724426,
-0.4063981771469116,
-0.358278751373291,
0.28151997923851013,
0.4170820415019989,
-0.3357698917388916,
-0.15576443076133728,
-0.0169737059623003,
-0.010654532350599766,
0.04779210314154625,
0.18780845403671265,
0.39459106326103... | 1 | What is the setting of The Scarlet Letter? Why is the setting important to the novel's man vs. society conflict?
The novel The Scarlet Letter is set in the theocratic and patriarchal Puritan society of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The year is 1642, which means that this particular group of colonists settled in the area of Boston, and were part of a second wave of settlers that came from England in 1630 with the purpose of purifying the Church of England.
The specific society to which Hester and Roger Prynne had planned to go and be a part of, offered many opportunities for settlers to start new lives. However, the Puritan rule was in place. This means that, upon arriving to Massachusetts Bay, the colonists had to abide by the rules set by the magistrates. They would also have to be assigned to a spiritual leader, which was essentially a pastor that would watch over their spiritual health. Hester Prynne's assigned spiritual leader, upon her arrival, was Reverend Dimmesdale.
Hester came into the colony alone. Moreover, shortly after her arrival it was thought that her husband, Roger, had been lost at sea and was presumed dead. Also shortly after her arrival, Hester and her pastor begin an affair. It is presumably close enough to her arrival date, since, little thereafter, she becomes pregnant.
When she can no longer hide the pregnancy, she is forced to reveal the name of the father of the child. As she refuses to do so, she is not only punished with the scaffold and prison, but is also mandated to wear the letter "A", for adulterer, on her bosom for the rest of her natural life.
This series of events reveal the conflict of man (or woman) versus society. Hester Prynne arrived in the colony already a loveless wife. When her husband is presumed dead, she engages in a relationship with someone whom she actually loves. To the modern reader, Hester's actions may seem too quick but, considering her situation as someone forced to marry at a young age, they are still understandable.
(The entire section contains 2 answers and 655 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | 454 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The first man to reach the North Pole was Robert Peary. He was born in May 1856 in Cresson-Pennsylvania. Peary went to Bowdoin College. Peary started eyeing the North Pole as early as 1886 before he finally landed there. As a result, he made several trips to Greenland as he planned on his world shaking achievement. Working alongside him was Matthew Henson. The two friends met when Henson was working at a merchant vessel. Peary was a US admiral at the time. When Peary and Henson reached the North Pole, there were controversies circulating about who the first person to set foot on the pole. Henson claimed he was the first. A rival of Peary’s called Frederick Cook also claimed to have reached the North Pole the previous year. However, Peary was acclaimed as the first Westerner to have ever set foot on the geographic North Pole.
Preparations For The North Pole Exploration
During the 19th Century, many explorers used European methods of exploring. However, Peary had a unique approach towards exploration. He decided to adapt to the lifestyle of the native Inuit people. Consequently, he began dressing and living like them. He would travel using sled dogs, he built igloos, and wore heavy fur. His exploration was such a great risk that he ended up having eight of his toes amputated. Peary and his ally Henson had to abort their mission to the North Pole twice in 1895 and 1902 due to the harsh conditions. Peary narrowly escaped death as the Inuit people came to their rescue. Not giving up on his mission, Peary continued with this arctic expedition in 1905. He reported to have covered the furthest areas of the north ever reached by anyone.
The 1909 Expedition To The North Pole
The journey began with 25 men: Henson, Peary, and 23 other men. They boarded the Roosevelt Ship and set off towards Greenland. During the last stretch towards the north, only five men had survived. The five were Henson, Peary, and three Inuits. In fact, Peary was so exhausted during the final days of the journey that his fellows had to pull him on a sled. Finally, Peary and Henson reached the North Pole. They flew the American flag and camped at the pole for 33 hours before returning back home. Peary’s mission had finally been accomplished on April 6, 1909.
Rewards And Accolades
Peary received a “Thanks of the Congress” in honor of his rare achievement. He also received a generous federal pension. As a result, he retired two years after the successful expedition to the North Pole. Peary also received the Cullum Geographical Award, Charles P. Daly Medal, Helen Culver Medal, Royal Belgian Geographical Society gold medal, and Hubbard Medal among many other medals. In addition, a monument exists in Cape York, Greenland in memory of Robert Peary.
Death And Legacy
Admiral Peary died on February 20, 1920 in Washington DC. He was laid to rest at the Arlington National Cemetery. However, his legacy of being the first Western man to reach the North Pole remains in the records to date.
Who Was the First to Go to the North Pole?
Robert Peary is widely credited as being the first explorer to have reached the Geographic North Pole.
About the Author
Sharon is a Kenyan native with a wide range of interests. An accountant and financial analyst by profession, Sharon enjoys writing about world facts, the environment, society, politics, and more.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | <urn:uuid:07d6d6e4-17b9-44c1-b1fa-4c4dfab568a2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/who-was-the-first-to-go-to-the-north-pole.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00224.warc.gz | en | 0.980817 | 766 | 3.984375 | 4 | [
-0.2710634469985962,
0.5451563000679016,
0.047500692307949066,
-0.13510803878307343,
-0.5520780086517334,
0.2409851849079132,
0.4849007725715637,
0.34127163887023926,
0.0046982779167592525,
-0.4070752263069153,
0.15009748935699463,
-0.3683834671974182,
0.3775719702243805,
0.466496199369430... | 2 | The first man to reach the North Pole was Robert Peary. He was born in May 1856 in Cresson-Pennsylvania. Peary went to Bowdoin College. Peary started eyeing the North Pole as early as 1886 before he finally landed there. As a result, he made several trips to Greenland as he planned on his world shaking achievement. Working alongside him was Matthew Henson. The two friends met when Henson was working at a merchant vessel. Peary was a US admiral at the time. When Peary and Henson reached the North Pole, there were controversies circulating about who the first person to set foot on the pole. Henson claimed he was the first. A rival of Peary’s called Frederick Cook also claimed to have reached the North Pole the previous year. However, Peary was acclaimed as the first Westerner to have ever set foot on the geographic North Pole.
Preparations For The North Pole Exploration
During the 19th Century, many explorers used European methods of exploring. However, Peary had a unique approach towards exploration. He decided to adapt to the lifestyle of the native Inuit people. Consequently, he began dressing and living like them. He would travel using sled dogs, he built igloos, and wore heavy fur. His exploration was such a great risk that he ended up having eight of his toes amputated. Peary and his ally Henson had to abort their mission to the North Pole twice in 1895 and 1902 due to the harsh conditions. Peary narrowly escaped death as the Inuit people came to their rescue. Not giving up on his mission, Peary continued with this arctic expedition in 1905. He reported to have covered the furthest areas of the north ever reached by anyone.
The 1909 Expedition To The North Pole
The journey began with 25 men: Henson, Peary, and 23 other men. They boarded the Roosevelt Ship and set off towards Greenland. During the last stretch towards the north, only five men had survived. The five were Henson, Peary, and three Inuits. In fact, Peary was so exhausted during the final days of the journey that his fellows had to pull him on a sled. Finally, Peary and Henson reached the North Pole. They flew the American flag and camped at the pole for 33 hours before returning back home. Peary’s mission had finally been accomplished on April 6, 1909.
Rewards And Accolades
Peary received a “Thanks of the Congress” in honor of his rare achievement. He also received a generous federal pension. As a result, he retired two years after the successful expedition to the North Pole. Peary also received the Cullum Geographical Award, Charles P. Daly Medal, Helen Culver Medal, Royal Belgian Geographical Society gold medal, and Hubbard Medal among many other medals. In addition, a monument exists in Cape York, Greenland in memory of Robert Peary.
Death And Legacy
Admiral Peary died on February 20, 1920 in Washington DC. He was laid to rest at the Arlington National Cemetery. However, his legacy of being the first Western man to reach the North Pole remains in the records to date.
Who Was the First to Go to the North Pole?
Robert Peary is widely credited as being the first explorer to have reached the Geographic North Pole.
About the Author
Sharon is a Kenyan native with a wide range of interests. An accountant and financial analyst by profession, Sharon enjoys writing about world facts, the environment, society, politics, and more.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | 797 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara
“I am sorry to inform you that you are the victim of a betrayal. Your son Edgardo has been baptized, and I have been ordered to take him with me. ” These words were uttered by a papal police officer who stood in the home of Edgardo Mortara. The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara tells the story of this six year-old boy, Edgardo, who is stolen from his family by the Vatican in the mid 1800s. The boy is then secretly baptized by one of the family’s servants, and thus becomes a Christian .
This may not seem like a large problem, however in this time in Italy, it is against the law for a Christian child to live with a Jewish family. Thus, in June of 1858 the Inquisitor of Bologna gives orders for the police to go to the home of Edgardo Mortara, to remove him from his family, and to bring him to Rome where he will live and be educated in the Christian ideology. Throughout this novel, the idea of Enlightenment is always prevalent. Nineteenth century Italy was a time focused on the unification of Italy, which was populated by many with opposing views.
At the time of the abduction, Enlightenment had been a strong force in Europe for over a century and Europe was filled with varying opinions on religion, government and lifestyle. The Enlightenment, as described by Immanuel Kant in the New World Encyclopedia, was a time of “increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy. ” People had began to think freely for themselves and began to question the Church and believe in their own personal rights.
As a result of this, there were many views on the morality of the kidnapping of the child. As Kirtzer writes “the spread of Enlightenment ideas of freedom of religion and separation of church and state was increasingly swaying public opinion”. The Enlightenment movement was extremely important in this book and greatly influenced the events that took place. Views on the Church As people began to think freely, they began to consider that perhaps the Church should not have so much control and should not be able to regulate every aspect of the country.
For centuries, the Church had had complete secular power in Italy and had controlled the people without question. After rebellions took place throughout Italy, the Church began to quell rising ideas of nationalism and secularization as the people grew tired of their rule. Once the story of Edgardo Mortara being seized came out, many forces throughout Europe that were opposed to the Church saw it as another key piece of evidence that the rule of the Pope needed to end.
Yet there were of course those who opposed these Enlightenment thoughts and believed the Mortara’s were to blame for the happening due to their violation of the law. Although obviously the supporters included the Archbishop, Cardinals, and Jesuits, there were also many citizens who did not commit to the Enlightenment idea and thought change was wrong. The Pope had spoken out to his followers claiming, “changes introduced into Europe with Enlightenment, and especially with the French Revolution, as threatening to the proper order of things-indeed as the work of the devil.
Although they may have not approved the baby being baptized secretly, they agreed that once it occurred the baby could no longer live with the Jewish family. To them, the law existed to protect the souls of children like Edgardo. Spread of Ideas Another way that the Enlightenment movement appears in the novel, is through the very way that the family’s story gets so large, by way of the media of the time. The age of Enlightenment brought about the idea of bettering oneself and increasing knowledge. This idea brought about the existence of much more “media” products such as newspapers, pamphlets and journals.
The story of Edgardo Mortara spread around the world on these very products and told the people dramatic accounts of the child being stolen from his parents. This led to further advancement of the Enlightenment ideas and further criticism of the Church and the Pope. “The emancipated Jews profited not only from their newfound freedom of expression and freedom of the press, but from their increased political influence, as the enlightenment ideology that citizens were entitled to enjoy certain basic rights was rapidly spreading. ”
Yet at the same time Cardinal Antonelli led the way for the church, with the large group of Catholic newspapers that existed backing him, saying they abducted the boy to prevent an “immense scandal in the eyes of the Catholics. ” The papers reported that the Archbishop offered Edgardo’s father the opportunity to keep his son, as long as the boy was raised a Christian, and when his father reportedly refused, the archbishop “did his duties. ” They told an inspiring tale of Edgardo happily going off with the police to gladly learn his new faith in Rome.
The idea of more people reading these papers, due to enlightenment thought, may have helped the Church hold tight to those who were on her side; however the opposition also had the “mighty pen” on their side and were able to outrage people as they told the tale of the Mortara family, sometimes even lying in order to do so. Even Edgardo’s father was recruited by Scazzochio to tell his account of what had happened and help put out whatever fire the Church’s story might start.
End of an Era Throughout Kertzer’s book, the idea always looms that this powerful regime that had been around for as long as remembered in Italy was about to fall. Enlightenment again was the main culprit for this happening. The age of Enlightenment had helped spark the French Revolution and people were beginning to idealize utopias encompassed with industry and knowledge. The Church was always facing this problem in the book and ultimately losing the battle.
As people tried to discredit the servant’s story of the baptism and others tried to get the boy released by using natural law, leaders of foreign powers, including the French ambassador, the Rothschild’s and even Sir Moses Montefiore, wrote the Pope on the situation at hand. Every effort, however, was wasted and the Pope would not budge on his decision. The Church continued to say that those against them were simply “poisoned by enlightenment ideas that were at odds with the church’s mission.
Yet the church was losing its grip as enlightenment thought continued to grow and Europe changed around her. The abduction of another boy from his family, along with the Franco-Prussian War, resulted in the removal of French troops from Italy and ultimately Rome’s fall to the Italians. However, by now Edgardo was nineteen, fully converted to Catholicism and distanced from his family. Conclusion Overall, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara tells a tale that changed the way Europe thought in the nineteenth century.
This riveting story paired with the already prevalent ideology of the Enlightenment paved the way for people to distrust the Pope and the secular rule that existed. Edgardo Mortara represented the problem in the area at the time and his story greatly influenced the change in Italy. The Enlightenment thought was the tool that allowed the people of Italy and the rest of Europe to stand up and not only realize what was wrong, but to fight for what was right. Without it, the people may have simply sat by as they did for centuries before and believed everything the Church said and did. | <urn:uuid:0eef48cf-9acc-42f9-a677-fcc3ab44fa3b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://freebooksummary.com/the-kidnapping-of-edgardo-mortara-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00106.warc.gz | en | 0.988907 | 1,549 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.045071303844451904,
0.1893947869539261,
0.005647447891533375,
-0.14228354394435883,
-0.14087851345539093,
-0.10477745532989502,
0.06825721263885498,
-0.05344095081090927,
0.22378456592559814,
0.20289024710655212,
0.1791936457157135,
0.0606146901845932,
0.04605959355831146,
0.32745915651... | 1 | The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara
“I am sorry to inform you that you are the victim of a betrayal. Your son Edgardo has been baptized, and I have been ordered to take him with me. ” These words were uttered by a papal police officer who stood in the home of Edgardo Mortara. The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara tells the story of this six year-old boy, Edgardo, who is stolen from his family by the Vatican in the mid 1800s. The boy is then secretly baptized by one of the family’s servants, and thus becomes a Christian .
This may not seem like a large problem, however in this time in Italy, it is against the law for a Christian child to live with a Jewish family. Thus, in June of 1858 the Inquisitor of Bologna gives orders for the police to go to the home of Edgardo Mortara, to remove him from his family, and to bring him to Rome where he will live and be educated in the Christian ideology. Throughout this novel, the idea of Enlightenment is always prevalent. Nineteenth century Italy was a time focused on the unification of Italy, which was populated by many with opposing views.
At the time of the abduction, Enlightenment had been a strong force in Europe for over a century and Europe was filled with varying opinions on religion, government and lifestyle. The Enlightenment, as described by Immanuel Kant in the New World Encyclopedia, was a time of “increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy. ” People had began to think freely for themselves and began to question the Church and believe in their own personal rights.
As a result of this, there were many views on the morality of the kidnapping of the child. As Kirtzer writes “the spread of Enlightenment ideas of freedom of religion and separation of church and state was increasingly swaying public opinion”. The Enlightenment movement was extremely important in this book and greatly influenced the events that took place. Views on the Church As people began to think freely, they began to consider that perhaps the Church should not have so much control and should not be able to regulate every aspect of the country.
For centuries, the Church had had complete secular power in Italy and had controlled the people without question. After rebellions took place throughout Italy, the Church began to quell rising ideas of nationalism and secularization as the people grew tired of their rule. Once the story of Edgardo Mortara being seized came out, many forces throughout Europe that were opposed to the Church saw it as another key piece of evidence that the rule of the Pope needed to end.
Yet there were of course those who opposed these Enlightenment thoughts and believed the Mortara’s were to blame for the happening due to their violation of the law. Although obviously the supporters included the Archbishop, Cardinals, and Jesuits, there were also many citizens who did not commit to the Enlightenment idea and thought change was wrong. The Pope had spoken out to his followers claiming, “changes introduced into Europe with Enlightenment, and especially with the French Revolution, as threatening to the proper order of things-indeed as the work of the devil.
Although they may have not approved the baby being baptized secretly, they agreed that once it occurred the baby could no longer live with the Jewish family. To them, the law existed to protect the souls of children like Edgardo. Spread of Ideas Another way that the Enlightenment movement appears in the novel, is through the very way that the family’s story gets so large, by way of the media of the time. The age of Enlightenment brought about the idea of bettering oneself and increasing knowledge. This idea brought about the existence of much more “media” products such as newspapers, pamphlets and journals.
The story of Edgardo Mortara spread around the world on these very products and told the people dramatic accounts of the child being stolen from his parents. This led to further advancement of the Enlightenment ideas and further criticism of the Church and the Pope. “The emancipated Jews profited not only from their newfound freedom of expression and freedom of the press, but from their increased political influence, as the enlightenment ideology that citizens were entitled to enjoy certain basic rights was rapidly spreading. ”
Yet at the same time Cardinal Antonelli led the way for the church, with the large group of Catholic newspapers that existed backing him, saying they abducted the boy to prevent an “immense scandal in the eyes of the Catholics. ” The papers reported that the Archbishop offered Edgardo’s father the opportunity to keep his son, as long as the boy was raised a Christian, and when his father reportedly refused, the archbishop “did his duties. ” They told an inspiring tale of Edgardo happily going off with the police to gladly learn his new faith in Rome.
The idea of more people reading these papers, due to enlightenment thought, may have helped the Church hold tight to those who were on her side; however the opposition also had the “mighty pen” on their side and were able to outrage people as they told the tale of the Mortara family, sometimes even lying in order to do so. Even Edgardo’s father was recruited by Scazzochio to tell his account of what had happened and help put out whatever fire the Church’s story might start.
End of an Era Throughout Kertzer’s book, the idea always looms that this powerful regime that had been around for as long as remembered in Italy was about to fall. Enlightenment again was the main culprit for this happening. The age of Enlightenment had helped spark the French Revolution and people were beginning to idealize utopias encompassed with industry and knowledge. The Church was always facing this problem in the book and ultimately losing the battle.
As people tried to discredit the servant’s story of the baptism and others tried to get the boy released by using natural law, leaders of foreign powers, including the French ambassador, the Rothschild’s and even Sir Moses Montefiore, wrote the Pope on the situation at hand. Every effort, however, was wasted and the Pope would not budge on his decision. The Church continued to say that those against them were simply “poisoned by enlightenment ideas that were at odds with the church’s mission.
Yet the church was losing its grip as enlightenment thought continued to grow and Europe changed around her. The abduction of another boy from his family, along with the Franco-Prussian War, resulted in the removal of French troops from Italy and ultimately Rome’s fall to the Italians. However, by now Edgardo was nineteen, fully converted to Catholicism and distanced from his family. Conclusion Overall, The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara tells a tale that changed the way Europe thought in the nineteenth century.
This riveting story paired with the already prevalent ideology of the Enlightenment paved the way for people to distrust the Pope and the secular rule that existed. Edgardo Mortara represented the problem in the area at the time and his story greatly influenced the change in Italy. The Enlightenment thought was the tool that allowed the people of Italy and the rest of Europe to stand up and not only realize what was wrong, but to fight for what was right. Without it, the people may have simply sat by as they did for centuries before and believed everything the Church said and did. | 1,506 | ENGLISH | 1 |
World War I
Belgium’s location may give it great political advantages, putting it right at the centre of Western Europe, perfect for its role as the host of the European Union. Unfortunately this has also regularly made it the site of military campaigns and battles. It’s for very good reason that Belgium is nicknamed “The Cockpit of Europe”.
Belgium was often little more than a pawn in events initiated hundreds of miles away, but the results could be devastating none-the-less.
A classic example is the devastation, both in human and material terms, brought about as a result of World War I, also known as The Great War, which was triggered by an incident that took place more than 1,500 kilometres away in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo. With the Centenary a lot will be happening in Belgium to commemorate this major event between 2014 and 2018.
A Series Of Unfortunate Events
On 28th June 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir-apparent to the crown of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and his wife, were riding through Sarajevo in an open carriage when they were assassinated. Actually, nobody particularly liked the Archduke. He had been unpopular with both his Austrian and Hungarian subjects, so few tears were shed either in Vienna or Budapest.
Although the assassins were Austrian subjects, the conspiracy had been hatched in Serbia, so Austro-Hungary decided this was the perfect excuse to attack Serbia.
This needed German approval, which the Kaiser duly gave. This German move frightened the Russians, who mobilised their army. This in turn scared the Germans who told the Russians to stop their mobilisation.
The Russians refused to give way and Germany declared war on them on 2nd August. Since the Russians were in alliance with France, the Germans declared war on their western rivals the following day. As there was no particular friendship between France and Britain, Germany thought that Britain would keep its distance, but the British were concerned that if they remained neutral the German navy would sail into the English Channel to bombard France. Since the British regarded the Channel as an English preserve, this could not be allowed.
Another important issue was that Great Britain was treaty-bound to defend the neutrality of Belgium.
So on 31st July Britain enquired of both France and Germany whether they would respect Belgian neutrality in the event of war. France said yes, but Germany only said maybe.
King Albert I, who was in fact related to the Kaiser, was very clear: the Belgian people would stop at nothing to defend themselves and would not accept the Germans advancing into France across Belgian soil. When Germany invaded Belgium a few days later, Britain had no option but to join the anti German alliance.
The Kaiser’s Strategy
In 1914 Germany military strategy was based on the assumption that an attack by Russia was extremely likely at any time. Since France had an alliance with Russia, Germany believed that the French would swiftly enter any such hostilities, keen as she was to revenge the humiliating defeat of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
This would mean Germany would have to fight a war on two fronts; something to be avoided at all costs.
A plan, originally formulated by Alfred von Schlieffen, the German Army Chief of Staff, was designed to deliver a knock out blow to the French by committing 90% of the mighty German military machine to attack France through Belgium and Luxembourg.
The Belgian army would simply be crushed as the German’s marched on through the country to fight their real battles on the way to Paris. The remaining 10% of the German army would hold off the Russians.
It was assumed the Russians would take at least six weeks to mobilise their army, by which time France would be defeated. Crucial to the plan was the swift crushing of any Belgian resistance and the neutrality of Great Britain. Little did the Kaiser's men know brave little Belgium was prepared to put up a fight.
Resistance And Sabotage
The invading Germans were nothing less than shocked by the fierce resistance of the Belgians. Expecting an uninterrupted march into France, the rattled Germans treated any act of opposition or sabotage as both illegal and immoral and enforced a brutal oppression.
It is said that between August and November 1914 about 25,000 homes and buildings in more than 800 communities were destroyed and around 6,000 Belgian civilians were executed, usually in a fairly summary way on the orders of junior German officers.
About three weeks after the start of the invasion, the German army ravaged the city of Leuven, destroying the University’s library of 300,000 medieval books and manuscripts.
The burning of Leuven's library quickly became an international symbol illustrating the atrocities the invading German forces we're capable of. By the time the Kaiser's soldiers had their way with the city they succeeded in killing 248 residents, expelling 10,000 locals and burning down 2,000 buildings. One report says that after a sabotage attempt, orders came to burn all the villages within a radius of several kilometres, shoot all the mayors, imprison all the men and evacuate all the women and children.
Many of the able and fit civilian men we're simply deported to Germany and put to work in the fields and factories, homes were plundered of anything of value, family jewels stolen and women ravaged.
Naturally these brutal and criminal events were widely reported in the Allied press and embroidered with sensational horror stories.
It was reported that nuns were tied to the clappers of church bells so that they would be crushed when the bells were rung – propagandists labelled the attack as “The Rape of Belgium”...
Soon after the German invasion, the British Expeditionary Force arrived on the scene to lend support to the Belgian army. The Belgian King Albert I actually led his troops into battle and his wife Queen Elisabeth joined the war effort as a field nurse.
Nevertheless, following their well-rehearsed plan the German army quickly swept forward, scoring significant victories at Liege and Mons before moving south into France. There the German army’s advance was halted by the Allies at the Battle of the Marne in early September.
This effectively shattered any hope of a German occupation of Paris. The scene was now set for four years of relentless bloodshed and destruction. Meanwhile the German army was making gains in Belgium, with the port of Antwerp falling on 10th October.
Moving inland the fighting intensified around the Belgian market town of Ypres, with both sides fighting shoulder to shoulder in thick skirmish lines. With its nearby railway junction it was just as important for the Allies to hold Ypres as it was for the Germans to take it.
The Belgian army flooded the low-lying coastal plains of the River Yser to prevent the invaders from reaching the sea and the Germans brought in four new reserve corps of volunteers, mostly university students under the age of 20. Due mainly to their lack of training, they died in their thousands. In Germany this is referred to as the Massacre of the Innocents at Ypres.
Although the front was still semi-fluid, trenches were being dug across the Belgian farmland in a line that would eventually stretch unbroken from the Channel coast to Switzerland.
Fighting continued around Ypres until 11 th November, when heavy snowfall put a stop to the Battle. The ambitious Schlieffen Plan was in disarray.
Rather than being walked over, the Belgian army had proved to be a significant opponent; Great Britain had not remained neutral and France had not been defeated in the hoped-for six weeks.
The Ribbon Of Death
In addition, rather than taking six weeks to mobilise, the Russian army had managed to do so in just 10 days and Germany had been forced to withdraw troops from the Western Front to defend the Fatherland in the East. The feared two-front war had become a reality.
At the end of this First Battle of Ypres, the Allies were left holding a precarious salient (a bulge in the line), with the Germans holding ridges overlooking them from the east and south.
The British Expeditionary Force of very seasoned and professional soldiers was in tatters, having lost 50,000 men, leaving the survivors completely exhausted.
The Germans were in a similar situation, but still held the upper hand: they were sitting on enemy soil with some of the richest industrial regions in northern Europe safely behind their lines.
It was during this first Christmas of the war that an unofficial truce spontaneously broke out in some parts of the Ypres sector.To the later fury of their High Commands, British and German soldiers fraternised, played football, swapped cap badges and cigarettes and even had their photographs taken together.
The Ribbon of Death, as the Front came to be called, varied in length but eventually stretched for nearly 500 miles.
It started in the northwest corner of Belgium near the coastal dunes, before travelling along the River Yser and then looping through the farmland just east of Ypres, forming the infamous salient.
Overlooking this were the low ridges of Passchendaele and Messines in West Flanders which were in German hands for much of the war.
The Front then continued south through the wet Flanders plain, crossing the border into France near Armentières.
Not all troops who lost their lives during the Great War were shot and killed by the enemy; 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers were executed after being court-martialled for cowardice or desertion.
The first to be shot at dawn was Private Thomas Highgate of the Royal West Kents. He was engaged in the Battle of Mons where 7,800 British troops were killed and was so terrified that he hid in a barn.
At his trial he was undefended because all of his comrades were dead, in hospital or had been taken prisoner. He was just 19 when he died. Private Herbert Burden was 16.
He was so keen to be a soldier that he lied about his age, saying that he was 18 when he enlisted in the Northumberland Fusiliers.
Ten months later, when he was still officially too young to even be a soldier, he was shot at dawn for running away after seeing his friends massacred.
Britain was sadly not alone in executing its own soldiers. The French are thought to have shot about 600, the Germans 48 and the Belgians 13. Finally in 2001 the Canadian government posthumously honoured the 23 executed Canadians and the five New Zealanders were also granted pardons.
In November 2006, after years of campaigning, the remainder received conditional pardons from the British government.
Many of those executed would have been suffering from what is now known as Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. The problem was that nobody was prepared for the carnage of industrialised war and for a great many the sheer horror proved to be too much.
Hundreds were unable to cope and many were simply driven insane. The great temptation, perhaps the natural reaction, was to run away from it all.
In the eyes of the military hierarchy this would be a major disaster: the great fear for the General Staff was that if it were allowed to happen, it would spread.
Everyone - military commanders, political leaders and even loved ones back at home - expected the troops to face up to the situation like men, since this was the only way for their good to triumph over the enemy’s evil. Of course, politicians and civilians at home had absolutely no conception of what the situation in the trenches was really like.
Even so, the army could not afford to carry anyone without what was considered the necessary moral fibre to fight.
Any signs of weakness were promptly dealt with in the severest way possible.
At least eight of the convicted soldiers were executed in the inner yard of the Town Hall in Poperinge, located about 20 minutes from Ypres. Since June 2013 visitors are able to see two authentic death cells, together with the actual post to which those executed were tied.
With much of the Front passing through France much of the fighting took place on French soil, but it was at the Second Battle of Ypres on 22nd April 1915 that a new dimension was introduced to the war when the Germans used poison gas for the first time. The unprotected French defenders fled in panic, leaving a gap of some five miles in the defence line.
The Germans advanced and got to within two miles of Ypres, but were reluctant to advance any further for fear of being poisoned by their own gas.
When a second gas attack was launched two days later against a different sector, the Canadian defenders improvised respirators using towels, handkerchiefs or bandages soaked in urine and bravely prevented a further collapse of the front.
In May the Germans carried out four more gas attacks, making some advances, by the end of the battle on 25 th May, the front was very much the same as it had been at the start.
Although with the Germans on three sides of the salient it was now even harder to defend. During the battle the British Expeditionary Force lost a further 58,000 men with Germans losses close to 38,000.
German sharpshooters mean't that for the Allies the Ypres Salient had become a horrific place of continuous danger, endless human sacrifice and suffering.
The Battle Of Passchendaele
The Allies had decided that as part of their “Northern Operation” they had to capture the Messines Ridge. A plan was devised to dig a number of tunnels underneath the German frontline defences and fill these with explosives that would be blown up immediately before an infantry assault against the German positions.
Work started on the tunnels in 1916 and on 7 th June 1917, at 3.10 am, 19 of them containing almost a million tons of high explosives were detonated.
The shockwave was felt as far away as London. Nine Allied divisions attacked and within a week the whole of the Oosttaverne Line was in Allied hands.
The attack was considered to be an outstanding success, although it resulted in 25,000 Allied casualties against 23,000 German losses, a figure that included 10,000 missing.
By mid-1917 the French army was in disarray, the Russian army in the East was on the verge of collapse and the Americans were still a long way from taking an active part in the war they had just joined. Consequently there was concern that the Germans would recover the whip hand. The British War Cabinet decided to authorise the “Northern Operation” for late July on the understanding that it would be terminated losses exceeded achievements.
The scene was set for the Third Battle of Ypres, also known as The Battle of Passchendaele. After a heavy preliminary bombardment by nearly 2,200 guns, nine divisions mounted an attack.
Unfortunately the Third Battle of Ypres was a major offensive fought with a defective plan and very ambiguous objectives.
Tanks were used, but only 19 out of the 48 actually saw any action and all but one of these were destroyed. And then there was the weather, August 1917 was the wettest August for many years and within a very short time the entire Ypres Salient was a sea of mud.
All movement up to the front lines had to be made over slippery plank roads or dangerous duckboard tracks, providing sitting targets for German gunners.
Counting The Losses
By October, after further heavy rain, Haig’s two generals, Plummer and Gough, recommended halting the offensive in order to secure a firm line on the Passchendaele Ridge for the coming winter.
Haig insisted on continuing for a further month, in spite of the fact that by now men were drowning in liquid mud.
By the time that Canadian Corps took Passchendaele village on 6th November, it was nothing more than a pile of rubble.
When the offensive finally came to an end on 10 th November, both sides had incurred about 250,000 casualties each, although some estimates put German losses at closer to 400,000.
By the time the battle ground to a halt the BEF had advanced about five miles but the northern tip of the ridge was still in German possession.
In his memoirs, written in 1938, Lloyd George referred to Passchendaele as one of the great disasters of the war and concluded that: “no soldier of any intelligence would now defend this senseless campaign”.
1918 saw the arrival of troops from the United States and Russia’s withdrawal following the communist revolution. In March, Germany launched a final massive offensive, but by then the allies were superior in equipment, strategic thinking and manpower.
The Germans were gradually pushed back to their own frontier and in November 1918, the German general Ludendorff pressed the Allies for an armistice in order to avoid an unambiguous Allied victory.
Large areas of Belgium had been completely laid to waste. Hundreds of thousands of young men had been killed, wounded or had simply vanished without a trace.
In May 1915, on the Ypres Salient, the Canadian doctor and Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae wrote his internationally celebrated poem "In Flanders Fields".
He draws attention to the fact that in spite of all the devastation, poppies were still growing between the rows of crosses that marked the graves of the dead.
These poppies have since become a symbol of human life lost in war. Today the “Great War” museum for the region is located in the beautifully restored town of Ypres and is also appropriately called In Flanders Fields.
Art with a capital B
An introduction to the history of Belgian art including an overview of some of the most influential and well-known artists to have come from Belgium.[ more... ]
UNESCO World Heritage
Information about UNESCO World Heritage sites in Belgium and explanation why beer culture in Belgium was officially recognised by UNESCO as Intangible Cultural Heritage.[ more... ]
The history of Belgium. A concise summary on how Belgium was founded and got to its present day form.[ more... ]
Belgium by bicycle. Throughout Belgium and in the Flemish region in particular, the love of cycling borders on fanaticism.[ more... ]
Belgian Antiques and Flea Markets
An extensive guide to some of Belgium's most important antique cities, shopping areas and flea markets in Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia.[ more... ]
War Memorials and Cemeteries
Belgium has important war memorials and cemeteries honouring those who fell on Belgian soil during the Battle of Waterloo, WWI and WWII.[ more... ]
World War II
Belgium and World War II. The role of Belgium in World War Two.[ more... ]
Belgium has no single national language. In fact it has three: Dutch, French and German,[ more... ]
You must be logged in to leave a comment
BRUSSELS/MONS - We’ve made our way down to the historic city of Mons (Bergen) for the eighth edition of the international Brussels Beer Challenge. A 90-strong jury is busy tasting; there are four morning sessions in a ro... [ more ]
BRUGES - This city draws you back in time to the heydays of the Burgundian era. After years of renovation works the Gruuthusemuseum has re-opened its doors. This former city palace is the showca... [ more ]
ANTWERP - Brewers from 59 different countries flocked to attend the Brewers of Europe Forum 2019 in the prestigious Queen Elizabeth Hall, right next to the renowned Antwerp Central Station building. ... [ more ]
ERTVELDE - To track down a brewer within his own domain is a high-ranking form of sports, or that’s the impression I get. After a bit of practice I spot Jef Versele, CEO of the Van Steenberge brewery, well hidden amongst... [ more ]
MECHELEN - The historic city of Mechelen, halfway between Brussels and Antwerp, is truly a hidden gem. The presence of the Dukes of Burgundy, who ruled here in the late middle ages, still permeates the ancient city centr... [ more ]
In the 18th century there was a very well-known brewer in the Dendermonde area; his name was Pauwel Kwak. He brewed his own beer, which was dark and heavy. He also has had a coachi... [ more ]
Beer Tourism Newsletter Signup
Enter your name and email address on the right and click "SignUp" to join. | <urn:uuid:b210e0a1-acdc-45ef-81b4-6c7fb95bb02d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://belgium.beertourism.com/about-belgium/world-war-i | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00161.warc.gz | en | 0.982469 | 4,246 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.23420140147209167,
0.44997385144233704,
0.3078787922859192,
-0.13697952032089233,
0.24163983762264252,
-0.15706807374954224,
0.10682711005210876,
0.5912503004074097,
0.16475796699523926,
0.1540176123380661,
0.11297410726547241,
-0.6316458582878113,
0.04107356816530228,
0.544540286064148... | 1 | World War I
Belgium’s location may give it great political advantages, putting it right at the centre of Western Europe, perfect for its role as the host of the European Union. Unfortunately this has also regularly made it the site of military campaigns and battles. It’s for very good reason that Belgium is nicknamed “The Cockpit of Europe”.
Belgium was often little more than a pawn in events initiated hundreds of miles away, but the results could be devastating none-the-less.
A classic example is the devastation, both in human and material terms, brought about as a result of World War I, also known as The Great War, which was triggered by an incident that took place more than 1,500 kilometres away in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo. With the Centenary a lot will be happening in Belgium to commemorate this major event between 2014 and 2018.
A Series Of Unfortunate Events
On 28th June 1914 Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir-apparent to the crown of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and his wife, were riding through Sarajevo in an open carriage when they were assassinated. Actually, nobody particularly liked the Archduke. He had been unpopular with both his Austrian and Hungarian subjects, so few tears were shed either in Vienna or Budapest.
Although the assassins were Austrian subjects, the conspiracy had been hatched in Serbia, so Austro-Hungary decided this was the perfect excuse to attack Serbia.
This needed German approval, which the Kaiser duly gave. This German move frightened the Russians, who mobilised their army. This in turn scared the Germans who told the Russians to stop their mobilisation.
The Russians refused to give way and Germany declared war on them on 2nd August. Since the Russians were in alliance with France, the Germans declared war on their western rivals the following day. As there was no particular friendship between France and Britain, Germany thought that Britain would keep its distance, but the British were concerned that if they remained neutral the German navy would sail into the English Channel to bombard France. Since the British regarded the Channel as an English preserve, this could not be allowed.
Another important issue was that Great Britain was treaty-bound to defend the neutrality of Belgium.
So on 31st July Britain enquired of both France and Germany whether they would respect Belgian neutrality in the event of war. France said yes, but Germany only said maybe.
King Albert I, who was in fact related to the Kaiser, was very clear: the Belgian people would stop at nothing to defend themselves and would not accept the Germans advancing into France across Belgian soil. When Germany invaded Belgium a few days later, Britain had no option but to join the anti German alliance.
The Kaiser’s Strategy
In 1914 Germany military strategy was based on the assumption that an attack by Russia was extremely likely at any time. Since France had an alliance with Russia, Germany believed that the French would swiftly enter any such hostilities, keen as she was to revenge the humiliating defeat of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
This would mean Germany would have to fight a war on two fronts; something to be avoided at all costs.
A plan, originally formulated by Alfred von Schlieffen, the German Army Chief of Staff, was designed to deliver a knock out blow to the French by committing 90% of the mighty German military machine to attack France through Belgium and Luxembourg.
The Belgian army would simply be crushed as the German’s marched on through the country to fight their real battles on the way to Paris. The remaining 10% of the German army would hold off the Russians.
It was assumed the Russians would take at least six weeks to mobilise their army, by which time France would be defeated. Crucial to the plan was the swift crushing of any Belgian resistance and the neutrality of Great Britain. Little did the Kaiser's men know brave little Belgium was prepared to put up a fight.
Resistance And Sabotage
The invading Germans were nothing less than shocked by the fierce resistance of the Belgians. Expecting an uninterrupted march into France, the rattled Germans treated any act of opposition or sabotage as both illegal and immoral and enforced a brutal oppression.
It is said that between August and November 1914 about 25,000 homes and buildings in more than 800 communities were destroyed and around 6,000 Belgian civilians were executed, usually in a fairly summary way on the orders of junior German officers.
About three weeks after the start of the invasion, the German army ravaged the city of Leuven, destroying the University’s library of 300,000 medieval books and manuscripts.
The burning of Leuven's library quickly became an international symbol illustrating the atrocities the invading German forces we're capable of. By the time the Kaiser's soldiers had their way with the city they succeeded in killing 248 residents, expelling 10,000 locals and burning down 2,000 buildings. One report says that after a sabotage attempt, orders came to burn all the villages within a radius of several kilometres, shoot all the mayors, imprison all the men and evacuate all the women and children.
Many of the able and fit civilian men we're simply deported to Germany and put to work in the fields and factories, homes were plundered of anything of value, family jewels stolen and women ravaged.
Naturally these brutal and criminal events were widely reported in the Allied press and embroidered with sensational horror stories.
It was reported that nuns were tied to the clappers of church bells so that they would be crushed when the bells were rung – propagandists labelled the attack as “The Rape of Belgium”...
Soon after the German invasion, the British Expeditionary Force arrived on the scene to lend support to the Belgian army. The Belgian King Albert I actually led his troops into battle and his wife Queen Elisabeth joined the war effort as a field nurse.
Nevertheless, following their well-rehearsed plan the German army quickly swept forward, scoring significant victories at Liege and Mons before moving south into France. There the German army’s advance was halted by the Allies at the Battle of the Marne in early September.
This effectively shattered any hope of a German occupation of Paris. The scene was now set for four years of relentless bloodshed and destruction. Meanwhile the German army was making gains in Belgium, with the port of Antwerp falling on 10th October.
Moving inland the fighting intensified around the Belgian market town of Ypres, with both sides fighting shoulder to shoulder in thick skirmish lines. With its nearby railway junction it was just as important for the Allies to hold Ypres as it was for the Germans to take it.
The Belgian army flooded the low-lying coastal plains of the River Yser to prevent the invaders from reaching the sea and the Germans brought in four new reserve corps of volunteers, mostly university students under the age of 20. Due mainly to their lack of training, they died in their thousands. In Germany this is referred to as the Massacre of the Innocents at Ypres.
Although the front was still semi-fluid, trenches were being dug across the Belgian farmland in a line that would eventually stretch unbroken from the Channel coast to Switzerland.
Fighting continued around Ypres until 11 th November, when heavy snowfall put a stop to the Battle. The ambitious Schlieffen Plan was in disarray.
Rather than being walked over, the Belgian army had proved to be a significant opponent; Great Britain had not remained neutral and France had not been defeated in the hoped-for six weeks.
The Ribbon Of Death
In addition, rather than taking six weeks to mobilise, the Russian army had managed to do so in just 10 days and Germany had been forced to withdraw troops from the Western Front to defend the Fatherland in the East. The feared two-front war had become a reality.
At the end of this First Battle of Ypres, the Allies were left holding a precarious salient (a bulge in the line), with the Germans holding ridges overlooking them from the east and south.
The British Expeditionary Force of very seasoned and professional soldiers was in tatters, having lost 50,000 men, leaving the survivors completely exhausted.
The Germans were in a similar situation, but still held the upper hand: they were sitting on enemy soil with some of the richest industrial regions in northern Europe safely behind their lines.
It was during this first Christmas of the war that an unofficial truce spontaneously broke out in some parts of the Ypres sector.To the later fury of their High Commands, British and German soldiers fraternised, played football, swapped cap badges and cigarettes and even had their photographs taken together.
The Ribbon of Death, as the Front came to be called, varied in length but eventually stretched for nearly 500 miles.
It started in the northwest corner of Belgium near the coastal dunes, before travelling along the River Yser and then looping through the farmland just east of Ypres, forming the infamous salient.
Overlooking this were the low ridges of Passchendaele and Messines in West Flanders which were in German hands for much of the war.
The Front then continued south through the wet Flanders plain, crossing the border into France near Armentières.
Not all troops who lost their lives during the Great War were shot and killed by the enemy; 306 British and Commonwealth soldiers were executed after being court-martialled for cowardice or desertion.
The first to be shot at dawn was Private Thomas Highgate of the Royal West Kents. He was engaged in the Battle of Mons where 7,800 British troops were killed and was so terrified that he hid in a barn.
At his trial he was undefended because all of his comrades were dead, in hospital or had been taken prisoner. He was just 19 when he died. Private Herbert Burden was 16.
He was so keen to be a soldier that he lied about his age, saying that he was 18 when he enlisted in the Northumberland Fusiliers.
Ten months later, when he was still officially too young to even be a soldier, he was shot at dawn for running away after seeing his friends massacred.
Britain was sadly not alone in executing its own soldiers. The French are thought to have shot about 600, the Germans 48 and the Belgians 13. Finally in 2001 the Canadian government posthumously honoured the 23 executed Canadians and the five New Zealanders were also granted pardons.
In November 2006, after years of campaigning, the remainder received conditional pardons from the British government.
Many of those executed would have been suffering from what is now known as Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. The problem was that nobody was prepared for the carnage of industrialised war and for a great many the sheer horror proved to be too much.
Hundreds were unable to cope and many were simply driven insane. The great temptation, perhaps the natural reaction, was to run away from it all.
In the eyes of the military hierarchy this would be a major disaster: the great fear for the General Staff was that if it were allowed to happen, it would spread.
Everyone - military commanders, political leaders and even loved ones back at home - expected the troops to face up to the situation like men, since this was the only way for their good to triumph over the enemy’s evil. Of course, politicians and civilians at home had absolutely no conception of what the situation in the trenches was really like.
Even so, the army could not afford to carry anyone without what was considered the necessary moral fibre to fight.
Any signs of weakness were promptly dealt with in the severest way possible.
At least eight of the convicted soldiers were executed in the inner yard of the Town Hall in Poperinge, located about 20 minutes from Ypres. Since June 2013 visitors are able to see two authentic death cells, together with the actual post to which those executed were tied.
With much of the Front passing through France much of the fighting took place on French soil, but it was at the Second Battle of Ypres on 22nd April 1915 that a new dimension was introduced to the war when the Germans used poison gas for the first time. The unprotected French defenders fled in panic, leaving a gap of some five miles in the defence line.
The Germans advanced and got to within two miles of Ypres, but were reluctant to advance any further for fear of being poisoned by their own gas.
When a second gas attack was launched two days later against a different sector, the Canadian defenders improvised respirators using towels, handkerchiefs or bandages soaked in urine and bravely prevented a further collapse of the front.
In May the Germans carried out four more gas attacks, making some advances, by the end of the battle on 25 th May, the front was very much the same as it had been at the start.
Although with the Germans on three sides of the salient it was now even harder to defend. During the battle the British Expeditionary Force lost a further 58,000 men with Germans losses close to 38,000.
German sharpshooters mean't that for the Allies the Ypres Salient had become a horrific place of continuous danger, endless human sacrifice and suffering.
The Battle Of Passchendaele
The Allies had decided that as part of their “Northern Operation” they had to capture the Messines Ridge. A plan was devised to dig a number of tunnels underneath the German frontline defences and fill these with explosives that would be blown up immediately before an infantry assault against the German positions.
Work started on the tunnels in 1916 and on 7 th June 1917, at 3.10 am, 19 of them containing almost a million tons of high explosives were detonated.
The shockwave was felt as far away as London. Nine Allied divisions attacked and within a week the whole of the Oosttaverne Line was in Allied hands.
The attack was considered to be an outstanding success, although it resulted in 25,000 Allied casualties against 23,000 German losses, a figure that included 10,000 missing.
By mid-1917 the French army was in disarray, the Russian army in the East was on the verge of collapse and the Americans were still a long way from taking an active part in the war they had just joined. Consequently there was concern that the Germans would recover the whip hand. The British War Cabinet decided to authorise the “Northern Operation” for late July on the understanding that it would be terminated losses exceeded achievements.
The scene was set for the Third Battle of Ypres, also known as The Battle of Passchendaele. After a heavy preliminary bombardment by nearly 2,200 guns, nine divisions mounted an attack.
Unfortunately the Third Battle of Ypres was a major offensive fought with a defective plan and very ambiguous objectives.
Tanks were used, but only 19 out of the 48 actually saw any action and all but one of these were destroyed. And then there was the weather, August 1917 was the wettest August for many years and within a very short time the entire Ypres Salient was a sea of mud.
All movement up to the front lines had to be made over slippery plank roads or dangerous duckboard tracks, providing sitting targets for German gunners.
Counting The Losses
By October, after further heavy rain, Haig’s two generals, Plummer and Gough, recommended halting the offensive in order to secure a firm line on the Passchendaele Ridge for the coming winter.
Haig insisted on continuing for a further month, in spite of the fact that by now men were drowning in liquid mud.
By the time that Canadian Corps took Passchendaele village on 6th November, it was nothing more than a pile of rubble.
When the offensive finally came to an end on 10 th November, both sides had incurred about 250,000 casualties each, although some estimates put German losses at closer to 400,000.
By the time the battle ground to a halt the BEF had advanced about five miles but the northern tip of the ridge was still in German possession.
In his memoirs, written in 1938, Lloyd George referred to Passchendaele as one of the great disasters of the war and concluded that: “no soldier of any intelligence would now defend this senseless campaign”.
1918 saw the arrival of troops from the United States and Russia’s withdrawal following the communist revolution. In March, Germany launched a final massive offensive, but by then the allies were superior in equipment, strategic thinking and manpower.
The Germans were gradually pushed back to their own frontier and in November 1918, the German general Ludendorff pressed the Allies for an armistice in order to avoid an unambiguous Allied victory.
Large areas of Belgium had been completely laid to waste. Hundreds of thousands of young men had been killed, wounded or had simply vanished without a trace.
In May 1915, on the Ypres Salient, the Canadian doctor and Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae wrote his internationally celebrated poem "In Flanders Fields".
He draws attention to the fact that in spite of all the devastation, poppies were still growing between the rows of crosses that marked the graves of the dead.
These poppies have since become a symbol of human life lost in war. Today the “Great War” museum for the region is located in the beautifully restored town of Ypres and is also appropriately called In Flanders Fields.
Art with a capital B
An introduction to the history of Belgian art including an overview of some of the most influential and well-known artists to have come from Belgium.[ more... ]
UNESCO World Heritage
Information about UNESCO World Heritage sites in Belgium and explanation why beer culture in Belgium was officially recognised by UNESCO as Intangible Cultural Heritage.[ more... ]
The history of Belgium. A concise summary on how Belgium was founded and got to its present day form.[ more... ]
Belgium by bicycle. Throughout Belgium and in the Flemish region in particular, the love of cycling borders on fanaticism.[ more... ]
Belgian Antiques and Flea Markets
An extensive guide to some of Belgium's most important antique cities, shopping areas and flea markets in Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia.[ more... ]
War Memorials and Cemeteries
Belgium has important war memorials and cemeteries honouring those who fell on Belgian soil during the Battle of Waterloo, WWI and WWII.[ more... ]
World War II
Belgium and World War II. The role of Belgium in World War Two.[ more... ]
Belgium has no single national language. In fact it has three: Dutch, French and German,[ more... ]
You must be logged in to leave a comment
BRUSSELS/MONS - We’ve made our way down to the historic city of Mons (Bergen) for the eighth edition of the international Brussels Beer Challenge. A 90-strong jury is busy tasting; there are four morning sessions in a ro... [ more ]
BRUGES - This city draws you back in time to the heydays of the Burgundian era. After years of renovation works the Gruuthusemuseum has re-opened its doors. This former city palace is the showca... [ more ]
ANTWERP - Brewers from 59 different countries flocked to attend the Brewers of Europe Forum 2019 in the prestigious Queen Elizabeth Hall, right next to the renowned Antwerp Central Station building. ... [ more ]
ERTVELDE - To track down a brewer within his own domain is a high-ranking form of sports, or that’s the impression I get. After a bit of practice I spot Jef Versele, CEO of the Van Steenberge brewery, well hidden amongst... [ more ]
MECHELEN - The historic city of Mechelen, halfway between Brussels and Antwerp, is truly a hidden gem. The presence of the Dukes of Burgundy, who ruled here in the late middle ages, still permeates the ancient city centr... [ more ]
In the 18th century there was a very well-known brewer in the Dendermonde area; his name was Pauwel Kwak. He brewed his own beer, which was dark and heavy. He also has had a coachi... [ more ]
Beer Tourism Newsletter Signup
Enter your name and email address on the right and click "SignUp" to join. | 4,298 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Krakow Population 2020
Krakow is one of Poland’s oldest cities, with a history going back to the 7th century. Today, the city is one of the most populous in the country and is a critical economic hub for Poland. The city’s population of over 760,000 makes it the second most populated city in Poland. There are even more people residing in the areas surrounding Krakow, with an estimated 8 million living within 62 miles of the city center.
City Size and Population Density
The city of Krakow covers a considerable portion of land. The surface area of the city proper comes to 326.8 square kilometers (126.2 square miles). Now, considering the size of the population in residence here, the population density comes to about 2,327.7 residents per square kilometer (6,029 residents per square mile).
Krakow has an estimated population of 762,508 people, making up approximately 2% of the total population of the country. People from all over Europe call Krakow home, with minority groups including Slovaks, Ukrainians, and Jews. Approximately 1% of the residents of Krakow identify as a minority.
Polish and Yiddish are the languages that are most often spoken in this city. Ukrainian, German, and Russian speech are also noted for a much smaller percentage of Krakow residents.
One of the things that the city is most known for is its churches, with over 100 erected throughout the city, many which were built during the 20th century. Churches continue to be built throughout Krakow, and there are churches for many different religions, including Roman Catholicism, Polish Catholic, Polish Orthodox, and Latter-Day Saints.
The city is known for being a center of education and is the site of 24 institutions of higher education. It is estimated that approximately 200,000 students reside and attend school in Krakow.
Wawel Hill is believed to be the first settlement in Krakow, dating back to the 4th century. The city’s name was first recorded in 966. Though the earliest years, Krakow was an important city. During the 10th century, it was a leading center for trade, and in 1038, it was named as the capital of Poland. It remained the capital until the late 1500s. Buildings were being built, and the city continued to grow, but then Krakow faced dark times. The city was destroyed during the Mongol invasion of Poland in the 1200s. In 1257, the city was rebuilt. Just two years later, it was again raided and destroyed by the Mongols. A third attack was attempted in the late 1200s but was not successful.
During the Renaissance period, art and architecture flourished throughout the city. This period saw the introduction of a printing press, as well as many scholars, scientists, and artists. In the late 1500s, following the passing of King Sigismund II, Poland became embroiled in wars with Sweden.
It was during the 1800s that Poland became a center for culture and art. Many famous writers, poets, and painters were born or lived in Krakow during this period. The arrival of the 20th century saw a more modern city. This included running water and electric streetcars. In the early 1900s, the population of the city doubled as more people moved from the countryside.
At the beginning of World War II, the Nazi Germans entered Krakow, and Mayor Stanislaw Klimecki stepped up to save the residents. During this time, many professors and academics were arrested. Monuments were destroyed or stolen. The Jewish residents were sent to live in ghettos and were killed. The ghetto and concentration camps in this city were the basis for the movie, “Schindler’s List.”
Following the war, the People’s Republic of Poland ordered a steel mill to be built to attract more working-class residents. However, the city continued to be known for its rich culture and was known as the cultural capital of Poland.
Since the end of the war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the population has climbed significantly. It is still a hub for business activity and is the site of many international companies such as Motorola and IBM.
Krakow Population Growth
Krakow is one of the biggest cities in Poland in terms of population. The city has experienced rapid periods of growth throughout the years, doubling from 1910 to 1915, and quadrupling once more after the end of World War II. Because the city is seen as both a cultural and business center in Poland, it is a popular place to reside, with population growth expected to continue into the years to come. | <urn:uuid:c84c529d-5b89-49a9-b732-7a8662776732> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/krakow-population/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681625.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125222506-20200126012506-00387.warc.gz | en | 0.982664 | 973 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.27522194385528564,
0.3330730199813843,
0.15434937179088593,
0.32219308614730835,
-0.2455049306154251,
0.38900309801101685,
0.05387473851442337,
-0.008233737200498581,
-0.1173771321773529,
-0.0589209720492363,
0.07172873616218567,
-0.36390432715415955,
-0.4705674648284912,
0.133475214242... | 1 | Krakow Population 2020
Krakow is one of Poland’s oldest cities, with a history going back to the 7th century. Today, the city is one of the most populous in the country and is a critical economic hub for Poland. The city’s population of over 760,000 makes it the second most populated city in Poland. There are even more people residing in the areas surrounding Krakow, with an estimated 8 million living within 62 miles of the city center.
City Size and Population Density
The city of Krakow covers a considerable portion of land. The surface area of the city proper comes to 326.8 square kilometers (126.2 square miles). Now, considering the size of the population in residence here, the population density comes to about 2,327.7 residents per square kilometer (6,029 residents per square mile).
Krakow has an estimated population of 762,508 people, making up approximately 2% of the total population of the country. People from all over Europe call Krakow home, with minority groups including Slovaks, Ukrainians, and Jews. Approximately 1% of the residents of Krakow identify as a minority.
Polish and Yiddish are the languages that are most often spoken in this city. Ukrainian, German, and Russian speech are also noted for a much smaller percentage of Krakow residents.
One of the things that the city is most known for is its churches, with over 100 erected throughout the city, many which were built during the 20th century. Churches continue to be built throughout Krakow, and there are churches for many different religions, including Roman Catholicism, Polish Catholic, Polish Orthodox, and Latter-Day Saints.
The city is known for being a center of education and is the site of 24 institutions of higher education. It is estimated that approximately 200,000 students reside and attend school in Krakow.
Wawel Hill is believed to be the first settlement in Krakow, dating back to the 4th century. The city’s name was first recorded in 966. Though the earliest years, Krakow was an important city. During the 10th century, it was a leading center for trade, and in 1038, it was named as the capital of Poland. It remained the capital until the late 1500s. Buildings were being built, and the city continued to grow, but then Krakow faced dark times. The city was destroyed during the Mongol invasion of Poland in the 1200s. In 1257, the city was rebuilt. Just two years later, it was again raided and destroyed by the Mongols. A third attack was attempted in the late 1200s but was not successful.
During the Renaissance period, art and architecture flourished throughout the city. This period saw the introduction of a printing press, as well as many scholars, scientists, and artists. In the late 1500s, following the passing of King Sigismund II, Poland became embroiled in wars with Sweden.
It was during the 1800s that Poland became a center for culture and art. Many famous writers, poets, and painters were born or lived in Krakow during this period. The arrival of the 20th century saw a more modern city. This included running water and electric streetcars. In the early 1900s, the population of the city doubled as more people moved from the countryside.
At the beginning of World War II, the Nazi Germans entered Krakow, and Mayor Stanislaw Klimecki stepped up to save the residents. During this time, many professors and academics were arrested. Monuments were destroyed or stolen. The Jewish residents were sent to live in ghettos and were killed. The ghetto and concentration camps in this city were the basis for the movie, “Schindler’s List.”
Following the war, the People’s Republic of Poland ordered a steel mill to be built to attract more working-class residents. However, the city continued to be known for its rich culture and was known as the cultural capital of Poland.
Since the end of the war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the population has climbed significantly. It is still a hub for business activity and is the site of many international companies such as Motorola and IBM.
Krakow Population Growth
Krakow is one of the biggest cities in Poland in terms of population. The city has experienced rapid periods of growth throughout the years, doubling from 1910 to 1915, and quadrupling once more after the end of World War II. Because the city is seen as both a cultural and business center in Poland, it is a popular place to reside, with population growth expected to continue into the years to come. | 1,026 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Trojan War
Buy The Trojan War essay paper online
During the dark centuries, which have come after the destruction of the Mycenaean civilization, the road of Greece was the main rout for wandering vagrant singers. Owners of houses and palaces invited singers to their homes, treated them behind a table, and after a meal, visitors were able to listen to the stories about gods and heroes. Singers recited verses and accompanied themselves on lyre. Homer was the most known of the Greek epic poets. He is considered the author of Iliad and Odyssey. Many literary critics arrived at the opinion that these poems had been developing and changing for several centuries; therefore, they carried the traces of different epochs. In addition, Homer was a mysterious character. Today, as well as in ancient times, people knew little about his background and life. According to one of the most popular legends, the poet originated from island of Chios and was blind. Until now, cities of Greece at the Mediterranean coast of Asia Minor argue for the right to be called his native land. In any case, Homer lived approximately in 850-750 BC. Scientists consider that both poems of Iliad and Odyssey have already developed as mature works by this time. In Iliad, Homer tells the story of how the city of Troy had been destroyed after a long siege by Achaeans. Even though the story is a combination of myths, legends and facts, this book is the most precise historic document of the military conflict. The paper presents the course of events of the Trojan war, according to Iliad by Homer.
Abduction of Helen, the wife of Menelaus the king of Mycenaean Sparta, by Trojan prince Paris became the main reason of war. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the dispute between three goddesses was a real motive of the conflict. Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite wished to get an apple, sent by Eris, another Greek deity. The gift was addressed for the fairest goddess; therefore, each of them considered that she is the one to receive it. In order to set an argument for the goddesses, Zeus charged Hermes to take them to the mountain to a young and handsome man Paris. He was one of 50 sons of Priam, the king of Troy. The young man grazed herds of his father. Goddesses asked Paris to solve their dispute and decide which of them is more beautiful. To reach their goal, every goddess seduced the prince with different gifts and benefits; Paris, however, named Aphrodite the fairest one. The reason of this decision was Aphrodite’s promise to help him lure the most beautiful among all the mortal women. Helen, the wife of king Menelaus, appeared to be this women; her father Zeus had endowed her with divine beauty and grace. In order to get his prize, Paris came to Greece by the ship and stayed in the house of Menelaus as the visitor. Having taken advantage of the owner’s absence, with the assistance of Aphrodite, he convinced Helen to quit her husband, leave Sparta, and become his wife. The lovers took away children and treasures and destined for Troy.
This impudent abduction had to be punished. With the help of his brother Agamemnon, a powerful king of Mycenae, Menelaus had got a huge army together, to revenge for the insult. He gathered other kings in Hellas to start a campaign against Troy. Noble heroes, such as Odysseus, Philoctetes, Ajax, Diomedes, Protesilaus, and others, had joined the Achaean army. Even Achilles, the son of nymph Thetis, volunteered for the campaign. Agamemnon, as the most powerful of Achaean rulers, was elected leader of the army. After the unsuccessful attempt of Menelaus to persuade Helen to return with all treasures back home, war was already inevitable. The huge army, numbering 100 thousand soldiers and 1186 ships, gathered in the harbor of Aulis; from this point, they destined for Troy. The long and exhausting war between Achaeans and Trojans begun soon afterwards. It appeared to be much more difficultly to take by storm the city than it seemed to be as it was protected from each side. Besides, the army of Priam comprised, except Trojans, a considerable number of allies. Gods also participated actively in the events under the walls of Troy. Brave Hector, the elder son of Priam, became a leader of the army; he had warded off the attacks of all enemies successfully for many years.
This struggle had lasted for a long nine years with variable success. However, the tenth year of the war witnessed numerous conflicts between the leaders of Achaeans. Nobel Agamemnon and the bravest of all Achaean heroes, Achilles, quarreled because of the spoils of war. Agamemnon had stolen Brizeida from Achilles’ tent. He was going to return the girl to her father, Apollo, to prevent the anger of gods. Achilles refused to take part in the battle, and his mother Fetid persuaded Zeus to take good luck away from Achaeans. Hector managed to outflank Achaeans to the ships. Agamemnon tried to return Achilles back to the fight; he sent Odysseus and Ajax, to move him to pity and persuade to rejoin the battle. All the pains and effort, however, were in vain; Achilles stayed in the tent. Only when the flame had captured one of Achaean ships, Achilles changed his mind. Patroclus, a faithful friend of Achilles, had borrowed his attire, and gone to fight with the Trojans. The Trojans, which frightened of imaginary Achilles, left the camp. However, Patroclus came too far, into the very heart of the battle, and was killed. After the death of a friend, Achilles reconciled with Agamemnon. He put on the new armor that was made for him by Hermes, and had rushed to the fight furiously. The grief overtook those soldiers, who came across Achilles’ hand. Soon, the scared and demoralized Trojans returned to the city walls. However, Hector did not listen to the pleases of his parents and remained on the other side of the gate, waiting for the enemy to come. Excessive bravery betrayed him, and he fell a victim to Achilles’ spear. The hero's fury was so great, that he tied the prince's dead body to the chariot and dragged it in front of the walls of Troy. After the burial of Patroclus, however, he had taken pity over the tears and requests of Priam; Hector's body was returned to his parents and solemnly buried. Achilles had rejoiced to his victory over Hector for a short time. Soon, he was hit in a heel by Paris’ arrow and fell in the field of fight. At Achilles’ birth, his mother bathed him in a special liquid, which made his body impregnable. Only one heel, of which mother held him, remained not moistened. Therefore, by advice of Apollo, Paris directed a killing arrow to the only vulnerable part of a body of Achilles.
Desperate fight was fought for Achilles’ body. Greeks spent a lot of time and efforts to win back his dead body. For seventeen days and nights, gods and people had mourned over the death of the incomparable hero. On the eighteenth day, they burnt his body and put ashes in an urn together with remains of Patroclus. Mother of Achilles decided to arrange pompous funeral games in honor of her brave son. She decided to give his armor to the bravest men, who tried to win back his body from Trojans. Odysseus and Ajax were among those, who declared the right for the armor. As they did not wish to come of second best, the final decision was given to the captured Trojans. Athena induced them to vote in favor of Odysseus; Ajax, however, could not accept his loss. The king was killed; his death had even worsened the affairs of Greeks. They were compelled to think of a reinforcement of the military forces; therefore, Odysseus rushed for Hellas to recruit new soldiers. He managed to persuade the son of Achilles, mighty Neoptolemus, and handsome Philoctetes to come to the aid of Greeks. However, fresh forces did not helped an army to get over the city walls. Then Odysseus had designed an unusual plan. With the help of skilful Epeus, Greeks built a wooden horse of such size that it could hold the group of soldiers. Odysseus in the guise of a beggar made the way to the city; he learnt its local plan and returned to his camp. He persuaded Greeks to burn their tents and put to the sea, demonstrating Trojans that they had decided to raise a siege. Odysseus together with Menelaus, Agamemnon, Diomedes, Neoptolemus and several other heroes hide themselves in a belly of a horse, which was worshiped by Trojans as a marvelous image of a deity. Despite cautions of the prophet, Trojans had broken a wall and dragged a horse into the city. The next night, the heroes who had been hiding in it left their cover and let the Greek army enter the city. It was a bloody night, a massacre of the Trojans, who were caught napping. Priam, all his relatives, and the best citizens were killed; the city was burnt; wives, children, and treasures became the spoils of war. Helen also had been found and delivered to the ship without any harm. Now, it was possible to come back home. However, returning to home was a sad event for many heroes. Ajax, the Locri's son, drowned during an awful storm created by Poseidon. Menelaus had been travelling the remote seas for a long time. Agamemnon had been killed by his wife Clytemnestra and her criminal accomplice Egisteem right after the homecomings. Even smart Odysseus had experienced a lot of suffering before he had managed to return to Ithaca. The storms that were sent to him by the angered gods had carried him across the seas for many years.
Modern scholars assume that economic rivalry between Troy and Union of Mycenaean kingdoms could be the real cause of the Trojan War. Nevertheless, the ancient Greeks believed in the veracity of the myths of the Trojan War. Indeed, if one removes acts of the gods from the Iliad, the poem looks like detailed historical chronicles of a military conflict. Archaeological excavations confirm the existence of the city, or maybe even a few cities, some of which were destroyed near the end of the 18th century BC. Today, the archeological excavations of Troy are still a subject to disputes between the archaeologists. At all accounts, the story of the Trojan War has remained in memory of the Western civilization for many centuries. The stories about it are an inexhaustible source for not only history and archeology, but also literature and art.
Related Free Humanities Essays
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:77790be6-aabe-4a84-9de1-af37957e55ad> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://exclusivepapers.com/essays/humanities/the-trojan-war.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00117.warc.gz | en | 0.984715 | 2,346 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.17787647247314453,
0.210097074508667,
0.21056796610355377,
0.03769125044345856,
-0.35570985078811646,
-0.5995007753372192,
-0.10471237450838089,
0.9463093280792236,
0.15745091438293457,
0.08505226671695709,
-0.2419859766960144,
-0.23476403951644897,
-0.06283830106258392,
0.65247726440429... | 1 | The Trojan War
Buy The Trojan War essay paper online
During the dark centuries, which have come after the destruction of the Mycenaean civilization, the road of Greece was the main rout for wandering vagrant singers. Owners of houses and palaces invited singers to their homes, treated them behind a table, and after a meal, visitors were able to listen to the stories about gods and heroes. Singers recited verses and accompanied themselves on lyre. Homer was the most known of the Greek epic poets. He is considered the author of Iliad and Odyssey. Many literary critics arrived at the opinion that these poems had been developing and changing for several centuries; therefore, they carried the traces of different epochs. In addition, Homer was a mysterious character. Today, as well as in ancient times, people knew little about his background and life. According to one of the most popular legends, the poet originated from island of Chios and was blind. Until now, cities of Greece at the Mediterranean coast of Asia Minor argue for the right to be called his native land. In any case, Homer lived approximately in 850-750 BC. Scientists consider that both poems of Iliad and Odyssey have already developed as mature works by this time. In Iliad, Homer tells the story of how the city of Troy had been destroyed after a long siege by Achaeans. Even though the story is a combination of myths, legends and facts, this book is the most precise historic document of the military conflict. The paper presents the course of events of the Trojan war, according to Iliad by Homer.
Abduction of Helen, the wife of Menelaus the king of Mycenaean Sparta, by Trojan prince Paris became the main reason of war. On the other hand, it should be mentioned that the dispute between three goddesses was a real motive of the conflict. Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite wished to get an apple, sent by Eris, another Greek deity. The gift was addressed for the fairest goddess; therefore, each of them considered that she is the one to receive it. In order to set an argument for the goddesses, Zeus charged Hermes to take them to the mountain to a young and handsome man Paris. He was one of 50 sons of Priam, the king of Troy. The young man grazed herds of his father. Goddesses asked Paris to solve their dispute and decide which of them is more beautiful. To reach their goal, every goddess seduced the prince with different gifts and benefits; Paris, however, named Aphrodite the fairest one. The reason of this decision was Aphrodite’s promise to help him lure the most beautiful among all the mortal women. Helen, the wife of king Menelaus, appeared to be this women; her father Zeus had endowed her with divine beauty and grace. In order to get his prize, Paris came to Greece by the ship and stayed in the house of Menelaus as the visitor. Having taken advantage of the owner’s absence, with the assistance of Aphrodite, he convinced Helen to quit her husband, leave Sparta, and become his wife. The lovers took away children and treasures and destined for Troy.
This impudent abduction had to be punished. With the help of his brother Agamemnon, a powerful king of Mycenae, Menelaus had got a huge army together, to revenge for the insult. He gathered other kings in Hellas to start a campaign against Troy. Noble heroes, such as Odysseus, Philoctetes, Ajax, Diomedes, Protesilaus, and others, had joined the Achaean army. Even Achilles, the son of nymph Thetis, volunteered for the campaign. Agamemnon, as the most powerful of Achaean rulers, was elected leader of the army. After the unsuccessful attempt of Menelaus to persuade Helen to return with all treasures back home, war was already inevitable. The huge army, numbering 100 thousand soldiers and 1186 ships, gathered in the harbor of Aulis; from this point, they destined for Troy. The long and exhausting war between Achaeans and Trojans begun soon afterwards. It appeared to be much more difficultly to take by storm the city than it seemed to be as it was protected from each side. Besides, the army of Priam comprised, except Trojans, a considerable number of allies. Gods also participated actively in the events under the walls of Troy. Brave Hector, the elder son of Priam, became a leader of the army; he had warded off the attacks of all enemies successfully for many years.
This struggle had lasted for a long nine years with variable success. However, the tenth year of the war witnessed numerous conflicts between the leaders of Achaeans. Nobel Agamemnon and the bravest of all Achaean heroes, Achilles, quarreled because of the spoils of war. Agamemnon had stolen Brizeida from Achilles’ tent. He was going to return the girl to her father, Apollo, to prevent the anger of gods. Achilles refused to take part in the battle, and his mother Fetid persuaded Zeus to take good luck away from Achaeans. Hector managed to outflank Achaeans to the ships. Agamemnon tried to return Achilles back to the fight; he sent Odysseus and Ajax, to move him to pity and persuade to rejoin the battle. All the pains and effort, however, were in vain; Achilles stayed in the tent. Only when the flame had captured one of Achaean ships, Achilles changed his mind. Patroclus, a faithful friend of Achilles, had borrowed his attire, and gone to fight with the Trojans. The Trojans, which frightened of imaginary Achilles, left the camp. However, Patroclus came too far, into the very heart of the battle, and was killed. After the death of a friend, Achilles reconciled with Agamemnon. He put on the new armor that was made for him by Hermes, and had rushed to the fight furiously. The grief overtook those soldiers, who came across Achilles’ hand. Soon, the scared and demoralized Trojans returned to the city walls. However, Hector did not listen to the pleases of his parents and remained on the other side of the gate, waiting for the enemy to come. Excessive bravery betrayed him, and he fell a victim to Achilles’ spear. The hero's fury was so great, that he tied the prince's dead body to the chariot and dragged it in front of the walls of Troy. After the burial of Patroclus, however, he had taken pity over the tears and requests of Priam; Hector's body was returned to his parents and solemnly buried. Achilles had rejoiced to his victory over Hector for a short time. Soon, he was hit in a heel by Paris’ arrow and fell in the field of fight. At Achilles’ birth, his mother bathed him in a special liquid, which made his body impregnable. Only one heel, of which mother held him, remained not moistened. Therefore, by advice of Apollo, Paris directed a killing arrow to the only vulnerable part of a body of Achilles.
Desperate fight was fought for Achilles’ body. Greeks spent a lot of time and efforts to win back his dead body. For seventeen days and nights, gods and people had mourned over the death of the incomparable hero. On the eighteenth day, they burnt his body and put ashes in an urn together with remains of Patroclus. Mother of Achilles decided to arrange pompous funeral games in honor of her brave son. She decided to give his armor to the bravest men, who tried to win back his body from Trojans. Odysseus and Ajax were among those, who declared the right for the armor. As they did not wish to come of second best, the final decision was given to the captured Trojans. Athena induced them to vote in favor of Odysseus; Ajax, however, could not accept his loss. The king was killed; his death had even worsened the affairs of Greeks. They were compelled to think of a reinforcement of the military forces; therefore, Odysseus rushed for Hellas to recruit new soldiers. He managed to persuade the son of Achilles, mighty Neoptolemus, and handsome Philoctetes to come to the aid of Greeks. However, fresh forces did not helped an army to get over the city walls. Then Odysseus had designed an unusual plan. With the help of skilful Epeus, Greeks built a wooden horse of such size that it could hold the group of soldiers. Odysseus in the guise of a beggar made the way to the city; he learnt its local plan and returned to his camp. He persuaded Greeks to burn their tents and put to the sea, demonstrating Trojans that they had decided to raise a siege. Odysseus together with Menelaus, Agamemnon, Diomedes, Neoptolemus and several other heroes hide themselves in a belly of a horse, which was worshiped by Trojans as a marvelous image of a deity. Despite cautions of the prophet, Trojans had broken a wall and dragged a horse into the city. The next night, the heroes who had been hiding in it left their cover and let the Greek army enter the city. It was a bloody night, a massacre of the Trojans, who were caught napping. Priam, all his relatives, and the best citizens were killed; the city was burnt; wives, children, and treasures became the spoils of war. Helen also had been found and delivered to the ship without any harm. Now, it was possible to come back home. However, returning to home was a sad event for many heroes. Ajax, the Locri's son, drowned during an awful storm created by Poseidon. Menelaus had been travelling the remote seas for a long time. Agamemnon had been killed by his wife Clytemnestra and her criminal accomplice Egisteem right after the homecomings. Even smart Odysseus had experienced a lot of suffering before he had managed to return to Ithaca. The storms that were sent to him by the angered gods had carried him across the seas for many years.
Modern scholars assume that economic rivalry between Troy and Union of Mycenaean kingdoms could be the real cause of the Trojan War. Nevertheless, the ancient Greeks believed in the veracity of the myths of the Trojan War. Indeed, if one removes acts of the gods from the Iliad, the poem looks like detailed historical chronicles of a military conflict. Archaeological excavations confirm the existence of the city, or maybe even a few cities, some of which were destroyed near the end of the 18th century BC. Today, the archeological excavations of Troy are still a subject to disputes between the archaeologists. At all accounts, the story of the Trojan War has remained in memory of the Western civilization for many centuries. The stories about it are an inexhaustible source for not only history and archeology, but also literature and art.
Related Free Humanities Essays
Most popular orders | 2,338 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How are the lower class in "Twelfth Night" conveyed? for example feste
How are the lower class in "Twelfth Night" conveyed?
for example feste
Shakespeare himself was unusual among the ranks of Elizabethan dramatists in that he had not attended a university and did not come from an upper-class family—on the contrary, his father was a farmer and, subsequently, a glove-maker, and Shakespeare was only educated because he was lucky enough to live in Stratford, where schooling was free for boys. Despite his personal experience of transgressing class boundaries, however, the prospect of working class people moving from one class to another is treated with some ridicule in this play.
Malvolio, who dresses above his station and uses diction more suited to upper class speakers, is ultimately punished for thinking he could elevate his own...
(The entire section contains 2 answers and 357 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | <urn:uuid:2a43159d-de5a-40cd-aa99-9c62328a12fc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-lower-class-twelfth-night-conveyed-48989?en_action=hh-question_click&en_label=topics_related_hh_questions&en_category=internal_campaign | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00225.warc.gz | en | 0.985471 | 195 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.2736968994140625,
0.11218493431806564,
0.18665239214897156,
-0.3218538165092468,
-0.1497029811143875,
-0.1809293031692505,
0.09126949310302734,
0.39490774273872375,
-0.05985324829816818,
-0.2508823871612549,
-0.14672952890396118,
-0.09396311640739441,
-0.10435641556978226,
0.119343809783... | 1 | How are the lower class in "Twelfth Night" conveyed? for example feste
How are the lower class in "Twelfth Night" conveyed?
for example feste
Shakespeare himself was unusual among the ranks of Elizabethan dramatists in that he had not attended a university and did not come from an upper-class family—on the contrary, his father was a farmer and, subsequently, a glove-maker, and Shakespeare was only educated because he was lucky enough to live in Stratford, where schooling was free for boys. Despite his personal experience of transgressing class boundaries, however, the prospect of working class people moving from one class to another is treated with some ridicule in this play.
Malvolio, who dresses above his station and uses diction more suited to upper class speakers, is ultimately punished for thinking he could elevate his own...
(The entire section contains 2 answers and 357 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | 193 | ENGLISH | 1 |
(CNN)It's the kind of study science fiction dreams are made of: A team of neurobiologists at UCLA "transplanted" a memory from the nervous system of one snail into another.
Scientists have transplanted memory from one snail to another. So, what does it mean for humans?
In order to do this, the team repeatedly "trained" a snail with electric shocks.
"We induced a very simple kind of memory in the snails called sensitization," said David L. Glanzman, a member of UCLA's department of Integrative Biology and Physiology and the lead author of the study.
He likens sensitization to experiencing an earthquake or other physically jarring event. "You'd be very jumpy for a time afterward," he said.
Glanzman and his team gave the snails a series of electric shocks to their tails. "The result is, their reflexes were greatly enhanced. If we touched their skin, they'll contract very strongly."
When the snails were good and jumpy, the team extracted RNA from their nervous systems and injected it into untrained snails.
"Twenty-four hours later, we tested the reflexes of those snails, and they showed the same reflexes of those that had been given electrical shocks," Glanzman said. | <urn:uuid:2a95e712-df07-4b22-8b92-2e6aa8ad487e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/17/health/snail-memory-rna-science-study-trnd/index.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00095.warc.gz | en | 0.986194 | 270 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.1856900453567505,
0.18348410725593567,
0.096715547144413,
0.03590487688779831,
-0.22698841989040375,
-0.13763684034347534,
0.614535927772522,
0.07909122854471207,
-0.007364240474998951,
0.20974154770374298,
0.24795322120189667,
-0.4386157691478729,
0.23224420845508575,
0.3023154437541961... | 1 | (CNN)It's the kind of study science fiction dreams are made of: A team of neurobiologists at UCLA "transplanted" a memory from the nervous system of one snail into another.
Scientists have transplanted memory from one snail to another. So, what does it mean for humans?
In order to do this, the team repeatedly "trained" a snail with electric shocks.
"We induced a very simple kind of memory in the snails called sensitization," said David L. Glanzman, a member of UCLA's department of Integrative Biology and Physiology and the lead author of the study.
He likens sensitization to experiencing an earthquake or other physically jarring event. "You'd be very jumpy for a time afterward," he said.
Glanzman and his team gave the snails a series of electric shocks to their tails. "The result is, their reflexes were greatly enhanced. If we touched their skin, they'll contract very strongly."
When the snails were good and jumpy, the team extracted RNA from their nervous systems and injected it into untrained snails.
"Twenty-four hours later, we tested the reflexes of those snails, and they showed the same reflexes of those that had been given electrical shocks," Glanzman said. | 265 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This Day in History – December 26, 1862
On the day after Christmas, 38 Dakota men were hanged in the largest mass-hanging in U.S. history. The execution was approved by President Abraham Lincoln.
The hangings were the result of conflict between the Dakota and settlers.
Mark Charles, Washington correspondent for Native News Online writes:
In the fall of 1862, after the United States failed to meet its treaty obligations with the Dakota people, several Dakota warriors raided an American settlement, killed 5 settlers and stole some food. This began a period of armed conflict between some of the Dakota people, the settlers, and the US Military. After more than a month, several hundred of the Dakota warriors surrendered and the rest fled north to what is now Canada. Those who surrendered were quickly tried in military tribunals, and 303 of them were condemned to death.
The trials of the Dakota were conducted unfairly in a variety of ways. The evidence was sparse, the tribunal was biased, the defendants were unrepresented in unfamiliar proceedings conducted in a foreign language, and authority for convening the tribunal was lacking. More fundamentally, neither the Military Commission nor the reviewing authorities recognized that they were dealing with the aftermath of a war fought with a sovereign nation and that the men who surrendered were entitled to treatment in accordance with that status.” (Carol Chomsky)
Because these were military trials, the executions had to be ordered by the President Abraham Lincoln.
Three hundred and three deaths seemed too genocidal for President Lincoln. But he didn’t order retrials, even though it has been argued that the trials which took place were a legal sham. Instead he simply modified the criteria of what charges warranted a death sentence. Under his new criteria, only 2 of the Dakota warriors were sentenced to die. That small number seemed too lenient, and President Lincoln was concerned about an uprising by his white American settlers in that area. So for a second time, instead of ordering retrials he merely changed the criteria of what warranted a death sentence. Ultimately, 39 Dakota men were sentenced to die.
And on December 26, 1862, by order of President Lincoln, and with nearly 4,000 white American settlers looking on, the largest mass execution in the history of the United States took place. The hanging of the Dakota 38.
Here is the New York Times account of the hangings:
Precisely at the time announced — 10 A.M. — a company, without arms, entered the prisoners’ quarters to escort them to their doom. Instead of any shrinking or resistance, all were ready, and even seemed eager to meet their fate. Rudely they jostled against each other, as they rushed from the doorway, ran the gauntlet of the troops, and clambered up the steps to the treacherous drop.
President Abraham Lincoln
As they came up and reached the platform, they filed right and left, and each one took his position as though they had rehearsed the programme. Standing round the platform, they formed a square, and each one was directly under the fatal noose. Their caps were now drawn over their eyes, and the halter placed about their necks. Several of them feeling uncomfortable, made severe efforts to loosen the rope, and some, after the most dreadful contortions, partially succeeded.
The signal to cut the rope was three taps of the drum. All things being ready, the first tap was given, when the poor wretches made such frantic efforts to grasp each other’s hands, that it was agony to behold them. Each one shouted out his name, that his comrades might know he was there. The second tap resounded on the air. The vast multitude were breathless with the awful surroundings of this solemn occasion. Again the doleful tap breaks on the stillness of the scene.
Click! goes the sharp ax, and the descending platform leaves the bodies of thirty-eight human beings dangling in the air. The greater part died instantly; some few struggled violently, and one of the ropes broke, and sent its burden with a heavy, dull crash, to the platform beneath. A new rope was procured, and the body again swung up to its place. It was an awful sight to behold. Thirty-eight human beings suspended in the air, on the bank of the beautiful Minnesota; above, the smiling, clear, blue sky; beneath and around, the silent thousands, hushed to a deathly silence by the chilling scene before them, while the bayonets bristling in the sunlight added to the importance of the occasion.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version had a photograph that was called incorrect. The photograph was replaced by the illustration of the hangings from the Library of Congress. | <urn:uuid:53eb80ec-1f78-48dd-b340-bbce299de987> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://nativenewsonline.net/currents/this-day-in-history-dec-26-1862-38-dakota-men-executed-on-approval-of-lincoln/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00394.warc.gz | en | 0.982849 | 973 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
0.02469933032989502,
0.24660754203796387,
0.3304002285003662,
-0.19895079731941223,
0.09440721571445465,
-0.33254456520080566,
0.14943400025367737,
0.18379093706607819,
0.035830821841955185,
0.11523749679327011,
0.28545254468917847,
0.2316601574420929,
0.06884343922138214,
0.36672914028167... | 1 | This Day in History – December 26, 1862
On the day after Christmas, 38 Dakota men were hanged in the largest mass-hanging in U.S. history. The execution was approved by President Abraham Lincoln.
The hangings were the result of conflict between the Dakota and settlers.
Mark Charles, Washington correspondent for Native News Online writes:
In the fall of 1862, after the United States failed to meet its treaty obligations with the Dakota people, several Dakota warriors raided an American settlement, killed 5 settlers and stole some food. This began a period of armed conflict between some of the Dakota people, the settlers, and the US Military. After more than a month, several hundred of the Dakota warriors surrendered and the rest fled north to what is now Canada. Those who surrendered were quickly tried in military tribunals, and 303 of them were condemned to death.
The trials of the Dakota were conducted unfairly in a variety of ways. The evidence was sparse, the tribunal was biased, the defendants were unrepresented in unfamiliar proceedings conducted in a foreign language, and authority for convening the tribunal was lacking. More fundamentally, neither the Military Commission nor the reviewing authorities recognized that they were dealing with the aftermath of a war fought with a sovereign nation and that the men who surrendered were entitled to treatment in accordance with that status.” (Carol Chomsky)
Because these were military trials, the executions had to be ordered by the President Abraham Lincoln.
Three hundred and three deaths seemed too genocidal for President Lincoln. But he didn’t order retrials, even though it has been argued that the trials which took place were a legal sham. Instead he simply modified the criteria of what charges warranted a death sentence. Under his new criteria, only 2 of the Dakota warriors were sentenced to die. That small number seemed too lenient, and President Lincoln was concerned about an uprising by his white American settlers in that area. So for a second time, instead of ordering retrials he merely changed the criteria of what warranted a death sentence. Ultimately, 39 Dakota men were sentenced to die.
And on December 26, 1862, by order of President Lincoln, and with nearly 4,000 white American settlers looking on, the largest mass execution in the history of the United States took place. The hanging of the Dakota 38.
Here is the New York Times account of the hangings:
Precisely at the time announced — 10 A.M. — a company, without arms, entered the prisoners’ quarters to escort them to their doom. Instead of any shrinking or resistance, all were ready, and even seemed eager to meet their fate. Rudely they jostled against each other, as they rushed from the doorway, ran the gauntlet of the troops, and clambered up the steps to the treacherous drop.
President Abraham Lincoln
As they came up and reached the platform, they filed right and left, and each one took his position as though they had rehearsed the programme. Standing round the platform, they formed a square, and each one was directly under the fatal noose. Their caps were now drawn over their eyes, and the halter placed about their necks. Several of them feeling uncomfortable, made severe efforts to loosen the rope, and some, after the most dreadful contortions, partially succeeded.
The signal to cut the rope was three taps of the drum. All things being ready, the first tap was given, when the poor wretches made such frantic efforts to grasp each other’s hands, that it was agony to behold them. Each one shouted out his name, that his comrades might know he was there. The second tap resounded on the air. The vast multitude were breathless with the awful surroundings of this solemn occasion. Again the doleful tap breaks on the stillness of the scene.
Click! goes the sharp ax, and the descending platform leaves the bodies of thirty-eight human beings dangling in the air. The greater part died instantly; some few struggled violently, and one of the ropes broke, and sent its burden with a heavy, dull crash, to the platform beneath. A new rope was procured, and the body again swung up to its place. It was an awful sight to behold. Thirty-eight human beings suspended in the air, on the bank of the beautiful Minnesota; above, the smiling, clear, blue sky; beneath and around, the silent thousands, hushed to a deathly silence by the chilling scene before them, while the bayonets bristling in the sunlight added to the importance of the occasion.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version had a photograph that was called incorrect. The photograph was replaced by the illustration of the hangings from the Library of Congress. | 983 | ENGLISH | 1 |
| Anne Queen of Great Britain and Ireland
Anne (6 February 1665–1 August 1714), became Queen of England and Scotland on 8 March 1702. On 1 May 1707, when England and Scotland combined into a single Kingdom, Anne became the first Sovereign of Great Britain. She continued to reign until her death. Anne was the last British monarch of the House of Stuart; she was succeeded by a distant cousin, George I, of the House of Hanover.
Anne's life was marked by many crises relating to succession to the Crown. Her Roman Catholic father, James II, had been forcefully deposed in 1687; her sister and brother_in_law then became King and Queen as Mary II and William III. The failure of Anne and of her sister to produce a child who could survive into adulthood precipitated a succession crisis, for, in the absence of a Protestant heir, the Roman Catholic James II could attempt to return to the Throne. It was for this reason that the Parliament of England passed legislation allowing the Crown to pass to the House of Guelph. When the Scottish Parliament refused to accept the choice of the English Parliament, various coercive tactics (such as crippling the Scottish economy by restricting trade) were used to ensure that Scotland would co_operate. The Act of Union 1707 (which united England and Scotland into Great Britain) was a product of subsequent negotiations.
Anne's reign was marked by the development of the two-party system. Anne personally preferred the Tory Party, but endured the Whigs. Her closest friend, and perhaps her most influential advisor, was Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. The Duchess of Marlborough's husband was John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, who led the English armies in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Anne was the second daughter of James, Duke of York, (afterwards James II) and his first wife, the Lady Anne Hyde (daughter of Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, an important politician). Her uncle was King Charles II, and her sister was the future Mary II. Anne and Mary were the only children of the Duke and Duchess of York to survive into adulthood. Anne suffered from an eye infection; for treatment, she was sent to France. She lived with her grandmother, Queen Henrietta Maria, and afterwards with her aunt, Henrietta Anne, Duchesse d'Orléans. Anne returned from France in 1670. In about 1673, Anne made the acquaintance of Sarah Jennings, who would become her close friend and one of her most influential advisors. Jennings later married John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough), who would later become one of Anne's most important generals.
In about 1672, Anne's father's conversion to Roman Catholicism became public. On the instructions of Charles II, however, Anne and her sister Mary were raised as Protestants. In 1683, Anne married the Protestant Prince George of Denmark, brother of the Danish King Christian V. Mary also married a Protestant Prince: William of Orange. When Charles II died in 1685 (converting to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed), Anne's father ascended the Throne as James II. James, desirous of a Roman Catholic successor, suggested to the Princess Anne that he would try to make her his heir if she converted to Catholicism. The Princess Anne, however, declared her firm adherence to Anglicanism; James II continued to send her Catholic books and essays, but made no serious attempt to effect a conversion.
James's attempt to grant religious toleration to Roman Catholics was not well_received by the English people. Public alarm increased when James's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son (James Francis Edward) in 1688, for a Roman Catholic dynasty became apparent. The Princess Anne's sister and brother-in-law, Mary and William, subsequently invaded England to dethrone the unpopular and despotic James II. The Princess Anne did not endeavour to support her father; instead, she quickly defected to the invader's side. James attempted to flee the realm on 11 December 1688, succeeding twelve days later. In 1689, a Convention Parliament assembled and declared that James had abdicated the realm when he attempted to flee, and that the Throne was therefore vacant. The Crown was offered to, and accepted by, William and Mary, who ruled as joint monarchs. The Bill of Rights 1689 settled succession to the Throne; the Princess Anne and her descendants were to be in the line of succession after William and Mary. They were to be followed by any descendants of William by a future marriage.
William and Mary
Soon after their accession, William and Mary exalted Lord Churchill by granting him the Earldom of Marlborough. The subsequent treatment of the Marlboroughs, however, was not as favourable. In 1692, correctly suspecting that Lord Marlborough was a Jacobite (that is, one who believed that James II was the legitimate monarch), Mary II dismissed him from all his offices. Lady Marlborough was subsequently removed from the Royal Household, leading the Princess Anne to angrily leave her royal residence for Sion House, the Marlboroughs' home. The Princess Anne was then stripped of her guard of honour, and the guards at the royal palaces were forbidden to salute her husband.
When Mary II died of smallpox in 1694, William III continued to reign alone. Seeking to improve his own popularity (which had always been much lower than that of his wife's), he restored the Princess Anne to her previous honours, allowing her to reside in St James's Palace. In 1695, William sought to win the Princess Anne's favour by restoring Lord Marlborough to all of his offices. In return, the Princess Anne publicly supported William's government. Still, she did not win the complete trust of her brother-in-law, who refrained from making her his Regent during his military campaigns in Europe.
In the meantime, the Prince George and the Princess Anne suffered from a series of personal misadventures. By 1700, the future Queen had been pregnant at least eighteen times; thirteen times, she miscarried or gave birth to stillborn children. Of the remaining five children, four died before reaching the age of two years. Her only son to survive infancy, William, Duke of Gloucester, died at the age of eleven on 29 July 1700, precipitating a succession crisis. William and Mary did not have any children; thus, the Princess Anne, heiress-apparent to the Throne, was the only individual remaining in the line of succession established by the Bill of Rights. If the line of succession were totally extinguished, then it would have become simple for the deposed King James to reclaim the Throne. To preclude a Roman Catholic from obtaining the Crown, Parliament enacted the Act of Settlement 1701, which provided that, failing the issue of the Princess Anne and of William III by any future marriage, the Crown would go to Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and her decendents, who descended from Charles I through Elizabeth of Bohemia. Several genealogically senior claimants were disregarded due to their Catholicism.
Personally, the Princess Anne preferred to see the Crown go to her father or to a member of his family, which was then in France. Nevertheless, noticing the necessity of a Protestant successor, she acquiesced to the Act of Settlement. Still, she wore mourning dress when her father died later in 1701. She did not, however, endear herself to her half_brother, James II's son and heir, James Francis Edward Stuart (the "Old Pretender").
William III died in 1702, leaving the Crown to Anne. At about the same time, the War of the Spanish Succession began; at controversy was the right of Philip, grandson of the French King Louis XIV, to succeed to the Spanish Throne. Although Philip was named in the will of the previous King of Spain, Charles II, much of Europe opposed him, fearing that the French royal dynasty would become too powerful. The War of the Spanish Succession (known in North America as Queen Anne's War) would continue until the last years of Anne's reign, and would dominate both foreign and domestic policy. Soon after her accession, Anne appointed her husband Lord High Admiral, giving him control of the Royal Navy. Anne gave control of the army to Lord Marlborough, whom she appointed Captain_General. Marlborough also received numerous honours from the Queen; he was created a Knight of the Garter and was elevated to the ducal rank. The Duchess of Marlborough was appointed to the post of Mistress of the Robes, the highest office a lady could attain.
Anne's first ministry was primarily Tory; at its head was Sidney Godolphin, 1st Baron Godolphin. The Whigs—who were, unlike the Tories, vigorous supporters of the War of the Spanish Succession—became much more influential after the Duke of Marlborough won a great victory at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. The Whigs quickly rose to power; soon, due to Marlborough's influence, almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley). One may observe that Lord Godolphin's son married the Duke of Marlborough's daughter, and that Lord Sunderland was the Duke of Marlborough's son_in_law. Several others benefitted from Marlborough's nepotism.
Reign in Great Britain
The next years of Anne's reign were marked by attempts to merge England and Scotland into one realm. When it had passed the Act of Settlement 1701, the English Parliament had neglected to consult with the Estates or Parliament of Scotland, who, furthermore, sought to preserve the Stuart dynasty. The Act of Security was passed; failing the issue of the Queen, it granted the Estates the power to choose the next Scottish monarch from amongst the Protestant descendants of the royal line of Scotland. The individual chosen by the Estates could not be the same person who came to the English Throne, unless various religious, economic and political conditions were met. Though it was originally not forthcoming, the Royal Assent was granted when the Scottish Parliament threatened to withdraw Scottish troops from the Duke of Marlborough's army in Europe and refused to impose taxes. The English Parliament—fearing that an independent Scotland would restore the Auld Alliance (with France)—responded with the Alien Act 1705, which provided that economic sanctions would be imposed and Scottish subjects would be declared aliens (putting their right to own property in England into jeopardy), unless Scotland either repealed the Act of Security or moved to unite with England. The Estates chose the latter option, and Commissioners were appointed to negotiate the terms of a union. Articles of Union were approved by the Commissioners on 22 July 1706, and were agreed to by the Scottish Parliament (though opposed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish People) on 16 January 1707. Under the Act, England and Scotland became one realm called Great Britain on 1 May 1707.
The Duchess of Marlborough's relationship with Anne deteriorated during 1707. The Duchess had proved a termagant, and had been undermined by another of the Queen's friends Abigail Masham. Mrs Masham, a cousin of the Duchess of Marlborough, was also related to one of Anne's Whig ministers, Robert Harley. Through Masham, Harley exerted influence over the Queen. Learning of Harley's new-found power, Lord Godolphin and the Duke of Marlborough grew jealous, seeking his dismissal. Anne was compelled to accept Harley's resignation in 1708. A group of five Whigs—Lord Sunderland, Thomas Wharton, 1st Earl of Wharton, John Somers, 1st Baron Somers, Charles Montagu, 1st Baron Halifax and Robert Walpole—dominated politics, becoming known as the "Junta." Also, Harley continued to retain influence with the Queen as a private advisor.
Anne's husband, the Prince George of Denmark, died in October 1708. His leadership of the Admiralty was unpopular amongst the Whig leaders; as he lay on his deathbed, some Whigs were preparing to make a motion requesting his removal from the office of Lord High Admiral. Anne was forced to appeal to the Duke of Marlborough to ensure that the motion was not made. After her husband's death, however, Anne grew more distant from the overbearing Duchess of Marlborough, preferring the companionship of the much more respectful Abigail Masham. The Queen terminated their friendship in 1709.
The fall of the Whigs came about quickly as the expensive War of the Spanish Succession grew unpopular in England; Robert Harley was particularly skilful in using the issue to motivate the electorate. A public furor was aroused after Dr Henry Sacheverell, a Tory clergyman who attacked the Whig government for offering toleration to religious dissenters, was prosecuted for seditious libel. Even more humiliating was the failure of the Whigs to obtain the desired sentence; Dr Sacheverell was merely suspended from preaching for three years, and did not face imprisonment, as some Whigs had hoped. In the general election of 1710, a discontented populace returned a large Tory majority.
Marlborough was still too influential to be removed, but his relatives soon began to lose their offices. Lord Godolphin was removed on 7 August 1710; the new ministry was headed by Robert Harley and included Henry St John. The new Tory government began to seek peace in the War of the Spanish Succession, for an unmitigated victory for Austria (Great Britain's primary ally) would be just as damaging to British interests as a loss to France. The Tories were ready to compromise by giving Spain to the grandson of the French King, but the Whigs could not bear to see a Bourbon on the Spanish Throne. In the House of Commons, the Tory majority was unassailable, but the same was not true in the House of Lords. To block the peace plan, the Whigs made an alliance with Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham and his Tory associates in the Lords. Seeing a need for decisive action, the Queen and her ministry dismissed the Duke of Marlborough, granting the command of British troops to James Butler, 2nd Duke of Ormonde. To erase the Whig majority in the House of Lords, Anne created twelve new peers (one of whom was Abigail Masham's husband) on a single day. Such a mass creation of peers was unprecedented; indeed, Elizabeth I had granted fewer peerage dignities in almost fifty years than did Anne in a single day.
Great Britain's involvement in the War of the Spanish Succession (as well as Queen Anne's War) was brought to an end in 1713 with the Treaty of Utrecht. Philip, grandson of the French King Louis XIV, was allowed to remain on the Throne of Spain, and was permitted to retain Spain's New World colonies. The rest of the Spanish inheritance, however, was divided amongst various European princes; Great Britain obtained the Spanish territories of Gibraltar and Minorca. Various French colonies in North America were also ceded to Great Britain.
Anne died on 1 August 1714, shortly after the Electress Sophia (8 June of the same year); the Electress's son, George I, Elector of Hanover, inherited the British Crown. Pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701, about fifty Roman Catholics with genealogically senior claims were disregarded. Amongst those who were omitted were the son of James II (James Francis Edward Stuart), the King of France (Louis XV), two future Kings of Spain and a future Holy Roman Emperor. Though such powerful figures were ignored, the Elector of Hanover's accession was relatively stable. The Jacobite claimant, James Stuart, led rebellions in 1715 and 1719, but was defeated both times.
The reign of Anne was marked by an increase in the influence of ministers and a decrease in the influence of the Crown. In 1708, Anne became the last British Sovereign to withhold the Royal Assent from a bill (in this case, a Scots militia bill). Preocuppied with her health (she suffered from porphyria), Anne allowed her ministers—most notably Robert Harley—as well as her favourite companions—the Duchess of Marlborough and Lady Masham—to dominate politics. (The close relationship between Queen Anne and the Duchess of Marlborough, along with accounts that the Queen was a lesbian, has led many people to believe that their relationship was sexual in nature, but no conclusive proof has been forthcoming.) The shift of power from the Crown to the ministry became even more apparent during the reign of George I, whose chief advisor, Sir Robert Walpole, is often described as the "first Prime Minister."
The age of Anne was also one of artistic, literary and scientific advancement. In architecture, Sir John Vanbrugh constructed elegant edifices such as Blenheim Palace (the home of the Marlboroughs) and Castle Howard. Writers such as Daniel Defoe, Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift flourished during Anne's reign. Sir Isaac Newton lived during Anne's reign, although he had reached his most important discoveries under William and Mary.
Style and arms
The official style of Anne before 1707 was "Anne, by the Grace of God, France and Ireland, France was only nominal, and had been asserted by every English King since Edward III, regardless of the amount of French territory actually controlled.) After the Union, her style was "Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc."
Anne's arms before the Union were: Quarterly, I and IV Grandquarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); II Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland). After the Union, the arms of England and Scotland, which had previously been in different quarters, were "impaled," or placed side_by_side, in the same quarter to emphasise that the two countries had become one Kingdom. The new arms were: Quarterly, I and IV Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England) impaling Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory_counter_flory Gules (for Scotland); II Azure three fleurs_de_lys Or (for France); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland).
- "Anne, Queen." (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. London: Cambridge University Press.
- McFerran, Noel S. (2004). "The Jacobite Heritage." (http://jacobite.ca/index.htm) | <urn:uuid:1d87eabf-87ff-4b6f-ae86-c7e43ab61f9e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Anne-I-of-Great-Britain | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00436.warc.gz | en | 0.980315 | 3,963 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.12290994077920914,
-0.05701602250337601,
0.7848092913627625,
-0.3576677441596985,
-0.08160699158906937,
-0.27182725071907043,
-0.23125293850898743,
-0.17572179436683655,
0.2922188639640808,
0.04062225669622421,
-0.3567109704017639,
-0.48212873935699463,
0.062316618859767914,
0.092976719... | 1 | | Anne Queen of Great Britain and Ireland
Anne (6 February 1665–1 August 1714), became Queen of England and Scotland on 8 March 1702. On 1 May 1707, when England and Scotland combined into a single Kingdom, Anne became the first Sovereign of Great Britain. She continued to reign until her death. Anne was the last British monarch of the House of Stuart; she was succeeded by a distant cousin, George I, of the House of Hanover.
Anne's life was marked by many crises relating to succession to the Crown. Her Roman Catholic father, James II, had been forcefully deposed in 1687; her sister and brother_in_law then became King and Queen as Mary II and William III. The failure of Anne and of her sister to produce a child who could survive into adulthood precipitated a succession crisis, for, in the absence of a Protestant heir, the Roman Catholic James II could attempt to return to the Throne. It was for this reason that the Parliament of England passed legislation allowing the Crown to pass to the House of Guelph. When the Scottish Parliament refused to accept the choice of the English Parliament, various coercive tactics (such as crippling the Scottish economy by restricting trade) were used to ensure that Scotland would co_operate. The Act of Union 1707 (which united England and Scotland into Great Britain) was a product of subsequent negotiations.
Anne's reign was marked by the development of the two-party system. Anne personally preferred the Tory Party, but endured the Whigs. Her closest friend, and perhaps her most influential advisor, was Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. The Duchess of Marlborough's husband was John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, who led the English armies in the War of the Spanish Succession.
Anne was the second daughter of James, Duke of York, (afterwards James II) and his first wife, the Lady Anne Hyde (daughter of Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, an important politician). Her uncle was King Charles II, and her sister was the future Mary II. Anne and Mary were the only children of the Duke and Duchess of York to survive into adulthood. Anne suffered from an eye infection; for treatment, she was sent to France. She lived with her grandmother, Queen Henrietta Maria, and afterwards with her aunt, Henrietta Anne, Duchesse d'Orléans. Anne returned from France in 1670. In about 1673, Anne made the acquaintance of Sarah Jennings, who would become her close friend and one of her most influential advisors. Jennings later married John Churchill (the future Duke of Marlborough), who would later become one of Anne's most important generals.
In about 1672, Anne's father's conversion to Roman Catholicism became public. On the instructions of Charles II, however, Anne and her sister Mary were raised as Protestants. In 1683, Anne married the Protestant Prince George of Denmark, brother of the Danish King Christian V. Mary also married a Protestant Prince: William of Orange. When Charles II died in 1685 (converting to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed), Anne's father ascended the Throne as James II. James, desirous of a Roman Catholic successor, suggested to the Princess Anne that he would try to make her his heir if she converted to Catholicism. The Princess Anne, however, declared her firm adherence to Anglicanism; James II continued to send her Catholic books and essays, but made no serious attempt to effect a conversion.
James's attempt to grant religious toleration to Roman Catholics was not well_received by the English people. Public alarm increased when James's second wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a son (James Francis Edward) in 1688, for a Roman Catholic dynasty became apparent. The Princess Anne's sister and brother-in-law, Mary and William, subsequently invaded England to dethrone the unpopular and despotic James II. The Princess Anne did not endeavour to support her father; instead, she quickly defected to the invader's side. James attempted to flee the realm on 11 December 1688, succeeding twelve days later. In 1689, a Convention Parliament assembled and declared that James had abdicated the realm when he attempted to flee, and that the Throne was therefore vacant. The Crown was offered to, and accepted by, William and Mary, who ruled as joint monarchs. The Bill of Rights 1689 settled succession to the Throne; the Princess Anne and her descendants were to be in the line of succession after William and Mary. They were to be followed by any descendants of William by a future marriage.
William and Mary
Soon after their accession, William and Mary exalted Lord Churchill by granting him the Earldom of Marlborough. The subsequent treatment of the Marlboroughs, however, was not as favourable. In 1692, correctly suspecting that Lord Marlborough was a Jacobite (that is, one who believed that James II was the legitimate monarch), Mary II dismissed him from all his offices. Lady Marlborough was subsequently removed from the Royal Household, leading the Princess Anne to angrily leave her royal residence for Sion House, the Marlboroughs' home. The Princess Anne was then stripped of her guard of honour, and the guards at the royal palaces were forbidden to salute her husband.
When Mary II died of smallpox in 1694, William III continued to reign alone. Seeking to improve his own popularity (which had always been much lower than that of his wife's), he restored the Princess Anne to her previous honours, allowing her to reside in St James's Palace. In 1695, William sought to win the Princess Anne's favour by restoring Lord Marlborough to all of his offices. In return, the Princess Anne publicly supported William's government. Still, she did not win the complete trust of her brother-in-law, who refrained from making her his Regent during his military campaigns in Europe.
In the meantime, the Prince George and the Princess Anne suffered from a series of personal misadventures. By 1700, the future Queen had been pregnant at least eighteen times; thirteen times, she miscarried or gave birth to stillborn children. Of the remaining five children, four died before reaching the age of two years. Her only son to survive infancy, William, Duke of Gloucester, died at the age of eleven on 29 July 1700, precipitating a succession crisis. William and Mary did not have any children; thus, the Princess Anne, heiress-apparent to the Throne, was the only individual remaining in the line of succession established by the Bill of Rights. If the line of succession were totally extinguished, then it would have become simple for the deposed King James to reclaim the Throne. To preclude a Roman Catholic from obtaining the Crown, Parliament enacted the Act of Settlement 1701, which provided that, failing the issue of the Princess Anne and of William III by any future marriage, the Crown would go to Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and her decendents, who descended from Charles I through Elizabeth of Bohemia. Several genealogically senior claimants were disregarded due to their Catholicism.
Personally, the Princess Anne preferred to see the Crown go to her father or to a member of his family, which was then in France. Nevertheless, noticing the necessity of a Protestant successor, she acquiesced to the Act of Settlement. Still, she wore mourning dress when her father died later in 1701. She did not, however, endear herself to her half_brother, James II's son and heir, James Francis Edward Stuart (the "Old Pretender").
William III died in 1702, leaving the Crown to Anne. At about the same time, the War of the Spanish Succession began; at controversy was the right of Philip, grandson of the French King Louis XIV, to succeed to the Spanish Throne. Although Philip was named in the will of the previous King of Spain, Charles II, much of Europe opposed him, fearing that the French royal dynasty would become too powerful. The War of the Spanish Succession (known in North America as Queen Anne's War) would continue until the last years of Anne's reign, and would dominate both foreign and domestic policy. Soon after her accession, Anne appointed her husband Lord High Admiral, giving him control of the Royal Navy. Anne gave control of the army to Lord Marlborough, whom she appointed Captain_General. Marlborough also received numerous honours from the Queen; he was created a Knight of the Garter and was elevated to the ducal rank. The Duchess of Marlborough was appointed to the post of Mistress of the Robes, the highest office a lady could attain.
Anne's first ministry was primarily Tory; at its head was Sidney Godolphin, 1st Baron Godolphin. The Whigs—who were, unlike the Tories, vigorous supporters of the War of the Spanish Succession—became much more influential after the Duke of Marlborough won a great victory at the Battle of Blenheim in 1704. The Whigs quickly rose to power; soon, due to Marlborough's influence, almost all the Tories were removed from the ministry. Lord Godolphin, although a Tory, allied himself with Marlborough to ensure his continuance in office. Although Lord Godolphin was the nominal head of the ministry, actual power was held by the Duke of Marlborough and by the two Secretaries of State (Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland and Robert Harley). One may observe that Lord Godolphin's son married the Duke of Marlborough's daughter, and that Lord Sunderland was the Duke of Marlborough's son_in_law. Several others benefitted from Marlborough's nepotism.
Reign in Great Britain
The next years of Anne's reign were marked by attempts to merge England and Scotland into one realm. When it had passed the Act of Settlement 1701, the English Parliament had neglected to consult with the Estates or Parliament of Scotland, who, furthermore, sought to preserve the Stuart dynasty. The Act of Security was passed; failing the issue of the Queen, it granted the Estates the power to choose the next Scottish monarch from amongst the Protestant descendants of the royal line of Scotland. The individual chosen by the Estates could not be the same person who came to the English Throne, unless various religious, economic and political conditions were met. Though it was originally not forthcoming, the Royal Assent was granted when the Scottish Parliament threatened to withdraw Scottish troops from the Duke of Marlborough's army in Europe and refused to impose taxes. The English Parliament—fearing that an independent Scotland would restore the Auld Alliance (with France)—responded with the Alien Act 1705, which provided that economic sanctions would be imposed and Scottish subjects would be declared aliens (putting their right to own property in England into jeopardy), unless Scotland either repealed the Act of Security or moved to unite with England. The Estates chose the latter option, and Commissioners were appointed to negotiate the terms of a union. Articles of Union were approved by the Commissioners on 22 July 1706, and were agreed to by the Scottish Parliament (though opposed by an overwhelming majority of the Scottish People) on 16 January 1707. Under the Act, England and Scotland became one realm called Great Britain on 1 May 1707.
The Duchess of Marlborough's relationship with Anne deteriorated during 1707. The Duchess had proved a termagant, and had been undermined by another of the Queen's friends Abigail Masham. Mrs Masham, a cousin of the Duchess of Marlborough, was also related to one of Anne's Whig ministers, Robert Harley. Through Masham, Harley exerted influence over the Queen. Learning of Harley's new-found power, Lord Godolphin and the Duke of Marlborough grew jealous, seeking his dismissal. Anne was compelled to accept Harley's resignation in 1708. A group of five Whigs—Lord Sunderland, Thomas Wharton, 1st Earl of Wharton, John Somers, 1st Baron Somers, Charles Montagu, 1st Baron Halifax and Robert Walpole—dominated politics, becoming known as the "Junta." Also, Harley continued to retain influence with the Queen as a private advisor.
Anne's husband, the Prince George of Denmark, died in October 1708. His leadership of the Admiralty was unpopular amongst the Whig leaders; as he lay on his deathbed, some Whigs were preparing to make a motion requesting his removal from the office of Lord High Admiral. Anne was forced to appeal to the Duke of Marlborough to ensure that the motion was not made. After her husband's death, however, Anne grew more distant from the overbearing Duchess of Marlborough, preferring the companionship of the much more respectful Abigail Masham. The Queen terminated their friendship in 1709.
The fall of the Whigs came about quickly as the expensive War of the Spanish Succession grew unpopular in England; Robert Harley was particularly skilful in using the issue to motivate the electorate. A public furor was aroused after Dr Henry Sacheverell, a Tory clergyman who attacked the Whig government for offering toleration to religious dissenters, was prosecuted for seditious libel. Even more humiliating was the failure of the Whigs to obtain the desired sentence; Dr Sacheverell was merely suspended from preaching for three years, and did not face imprisonment, as some Whigs had hoped. In the general election of 1710, a discontented populace returned a large Tory majority.
Marlborough was still too influential to be removed, but his relatives soon began to lose their offices. Lord Godolphin was removed on 7 August 1710; the new ministry was headed by Robert Harley and included Henry St John. The new Tory government began to seek peace in the War of the Spanish Succession, for an unmitigated victory for Austria (Great Britain's primary ally) would be just as damaging to British interests as a loss to France. The Tories were ready to compromise by giving Spain to the grandson of the French King, but the Whigs could not bear to see a Bourbon on the Spanish Throne. In the House of Commons, the Tory majority was unassailable, but the same was not true in the House of Lords. To block the peace plan, the Whigs made an alliance with Daniel Finch, 2nd Earl of Nottingham and his Tory associates in the Lords. Seeing a need for decisive action, the Queen and her ministry dismissed the Duke of Marlborough, granting the command of British troops to James Butler, 2nd Duke of Ormonde. To erase the Whig majority in the House of Lords, Anne created twelve new peers (one of whom was Abigail Masham's husband) on a single day. Such a mass creation of peers was unprecedented; indeed, Elizabeth I had granted fewer peerage dignities in almost fifty years than did Anne in a single day.
Great Britain's involvement in the War of the Spanish Succession (as well as Queen Anne's War) was brought to an end in 1713 with the Treaty of Utrecht. Philip, grandson of the French King Louis XIV, was allowed to remain on the Throne of Spain, and was permitted to retain Spain's New World colonies. The rest of the Spanish inheritance, however, was divided amongst various European princes; Great Britain obtained the Spanish territories of Gibraltar and Minorca. Various French colonies in North America were also ceded to Great Britain.
Anne died on 1 August 1714, shortly after the Electress Sophia (8 June of the same year); the Electress's son, George I, Elector of Hanover, inherited the British Crown. Pursuant to the Act of Settlement 1701, about fifty Roman Catholics with genealogically senior claims were disregarded. Amongst those who were omitted were the son of James II (James Francis Edward Stuart), the King of France (Louis XV), two future Kings of Spain and a future Holy Roman Emperor. Though such powerful figures were ignored, the Elector of Hanover's accession was relatively stable. The Jacobite claimant, James Stuart, led rebellions in 1715 and 1719, but was defeated both times.
The reign of Anne was marked by an increase in the influence of ministers and a decrease in the influence of the Crown. In 1708, Anne became the last British Sovereign to withhold the Royal Assent from a bill (in this case, a Scots militia bill). Preocuppied with her health (she suffered from porphyria), Anne allowed her ministers—most notably Robert Harley—as well as her favourite companions—the Duchess of Marlborough and Lady Masham—to dominate politics. (The close relationship between Queen Anne and the Duchess of Marlborough, along with accounts that the Queen was a lesbian, has led many people to believe that their relationship was sexual in nature, but no conclusive proof has been forthcoming.) The shift of power from the Crown to the ministry became even more apparent during the reign of George I, whose chief advisor, Sir Robert Walpole, is often described as the "first Prime Minister."
The age of Anne was also one of artistic, literary and scientific advancement. In architecture, Sir John Vanbrugh constructed elegant edifices such as Blenheim Palace (the home of the Marlboroughs) and Castle Howard. Writers such as Daniel Defoe, Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift flourished during Anne's reign. Sir Isaac Newton lived during Anne's reign, although he had reached his most important discoveries under William and Mary.
Style and arms
The official style of Anne before 1707 was "Anne, by the Grace of God, France and Ireland, France was only nominal, and had been asserted by every English King since Edward III, regardless of the amount of French territory actually controlled.) After the Union, her style was "Anne, by the Grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc."
Anne's arms before the Union were: Quarterly, I and IV Grandquarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); II Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland). After the Union, the arms of England and Scotland, which had previously been in different quarters, were "impaled," or placed side_by_side, in the same quarter to emphasise that the two countries had become one Kingdom. The new arms were: Quarterly, I and IV Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England) impaling Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory_counter_flory Gules (for Scotland); II Azure three fleurs_de_lys Or (for France); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland).
- "Anne, Queen." (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. London: Cambridge University Press.
- McFerran, Noel S. (2004). "The Jacobite Heritage." (http://jacobite.ca/index.htm) | 4,060 | ENGLISH | 1 |
History Of The
Shaker Oval Box
By Neil Wade
The history of the Shaker Box is as rich and textured as the wood used to create them. Originally constructed by Shaker communities living in 18th century America, the boxes are evidence of a time when quality and function were synonymous.
The wood is cut to size and the “fingers” are shaped. The wooden bands that will form the walls are bathed in hot water until they are pliable enough to bend. Once bent, they are tacked with copper tacks produced on century-old machinery. Then, after hours of drying, they are individually fitted with covers and bases that are pegged in place with tiny dowels.
The Shaker oval box was originally a working box for storage of dry items, holding various small dry items like spices, herbs, thread, buttons, and powdered paint pigments but today used more as a decorative item. They stored easily, as a smaller one could be put inside an empty larger one. The idea of buying a complete set of seven or eight graduated size boxes was a luxury that was out of the reach of most nineteenth-century households, as each size cost about a full day’s pay and the larger ones even more.
The boxes were attractive to many besides the Shakers and their “fancy work” was sold by the thousands. The boxes were made in various shapes and sizes, with their oval shaped ones being most popular. Box making was the leading symbol of Shaker life and one of their most productive business enterprises. Loop handles were added to some varieties to make it easier to carry lighter items like eggs and sewing thread. Many times the boxes with handles were used to carry items to and from the market. Certain styles of boxes came with a single handle attached to the side that was used as a “dipper” scoop for different quantities.
The Shakers were not the originators or inventors of these bentwood boxes, but did refine their style and standardize shapes and sizes. According to master box-maker and Director for Collections and Research at the Shaker Museum (Mount Lebanon) at Old Chatham, New York, Jerry V. Grant, likely Shaker brothers from many of their communities already made the wooden boxes on a limited scale in the mid-eighteenth century. They started making their boxes on an industrial scale at just a few of their communities about 1799. These were Canterbury, New Hampshire; Alfred and Sabbathday Lake, Maine; Union Village, Ohio; and their New Lebanon Shaker Village. They first started making boxes for sale to the outside world in New Lebanon around 1798 – 1799 which was just over 20 years from the time they came to New York from England.
Shaker oval boxes are constructed using swallowtail projections on the box during the shaping process. These projections are incorrectly referred to as “fingers” or lappers. The swallowtail projections were added for practical purposes in the construction as they allowed the wood to expand and contract without splitting during temperature and humidity changes. Most of the boxes were made by the Shaker religious leaders, the male Elders. However, the oval bentwood box had no special religious significance and in fact was being made in Europe over a century before the Shakers even existed.
Their particular style of oval “Shaker boxes” had certain technological steps to assemble. The various parts had jigs and fixtures to assist in making. For example, the outside elongated “swallowtails” had templates for tracing their distinctive shape. The steamed rims were put around a form called a “follower” until they dried to develop their permanent shape. They had machines aid with other parts to help in mass production. In 1829 they built a new machine shop where the machinery was operated by a twenty-six foot diameter water wheel. They were known to have bought newly invented machines that assisted in making certain board pieces that were created by hand up until then.
After the box surfaces are smoothed and sanded in preparation for finish coats. The Shaker boxes were traditionally finished with milk paint made from milk casein, tinted with earth pigments. Milk paint is incredibly durable, lasting 100s of years when used indoors.
Shaker boxes showing their distinctive characteristic elongated “fingers”
The Shakers’ annual production of boxes in 1830 was 1,308. That increased yearly until their peak year of 1836, when they produced 3,650. There was an economic crisis in 1837. Also at this time inexpensive tin and glass containers were becoming available. In spite of these difficulties, Mount Lebanon improved its machinery and had its “golden age”, producing some 77,000 boxes between 1822 and 1865. However, after the American Civil War the production fell to only hundreds annually.
The Shaker Office Deacons kept annual sales accounts starting in 1805. The records show boxes were mostly sold individually, however some “nests” were sold of the graduated boxes. For many years the prices were given in pounds, shillings and pence. For example, the smallest boxes sold for one shilling two pence and the largest ones were four shillings. The “nests” sold for various prices indicating they were not a standard quantity of boxes. The records started using the word “oval” to describe the boxes in 1814. An advertising insert to the Shaker chair catalogues of the mid 1870s gave eleven sizes for their “Fancy Oval Covered Wooden Boxes”. By the mid-1880s the nest of boxes eliminated the two largest and two smallest ones. The “nest” was then seven. | <urn:uuid:957027b3-aedd-428b-8ee1-bfbd0cf3d696> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://redsquirrelwoodendesigns.co.uk/history-of-the-shaker-oval-box/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00327.warc.gz | en | 0.98264 | 1,181 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.1580103039741516,
-0.14879435300827026,
0.504023015499115,
-0.006409053690731525,
-0.3260605037212372,
0.21313045918941498,
0.24873249232769012,
0.01067422330379486,
-0.27170711755752563,
-0.052338480949401855,
0.005131323356181383,
-0.30086246132850647,
-0.096609927713871,
-0.0169515870... | 1 | History Of The
Shaker Oval Box
By Neil Wade
The history of the Shaker Box is as rich and textured as the wood used to create them. Originally constructed by Shaker communities living in 18th century America, the boxes are evidence of a time when quality and function were synonymous.
The wood is cut to size and the “fingers” are shaped. The wooden bands that will form the walls are bathed in hot water until they are pliable enough to bend. Once bent, they are tacked with copper tacks produced on century-old machinery. Then, after hours of drying, they are individually fitted with covers and bases that are pegged in place with tiny dowels.
The Shaker oval box was originally a working box for storage of dry items, holding various small dry items like spices, herbs, thread, buttons, and powdered paint pigments but today used more as a decorative item. They stored easily, as a smaller one could be put inside an empty larger one. The idea of buying a complete set of seven or eight graduated size boxes was a luxury that was out of the reach of most nineteenth-century households, as each size cost about a full day’s pay and the larger ones even more.
The boxes were attractive to many besides the Shakers and their “fancy work” was sold by the thousands. The boxes were made in various shapes and sizes, with their oval shaped ones being most popular. Box making was the leading symbol of Shaker life and one of their most productive business enterprises. Loop handles were added to some varieties to make it easier to carry lighter items like eggs and sewing thread. Many times the boxes with handles were used to carry items to and from the market. Certain styles of boxes came with a single handle attached to the side that was used as a “dipper” scoop for different quantities.
The Shakers were not the originators or inventors of these bentwood boxes, but did refine their style and standardize shapes and sizes. According to master box-maker and Director for Collections and Research at the Shaker Museum (Mount Lebanon) at Old Chatham, New York, Jerry V. Grant, likely Shaker brothers from many of their communities already made the wooden boxes on a limited scale in the mid-eighteenth century. They started making their boxes on an industrial scale at just a few of their communities about 1799. These were Canterbury, New Hampshire; Alfred and Sabbathday Lake, Maine; Union Village, Ohio; and their New Lebanon Shaker Village. They first started making boxes for sale to the outside world in New Lebanon around 1798 – 1799 which was just over 20 years from the time they came to New York from England.
Shaker oval boxes are constructed using swallowtail projections on the box during the shaping process. These projections are incorrectly referred to as “fingers” or lappers. The swallowtail projections were added for practical purposes in the construction as they allowed the wood to expand and contract without splitting during temperature and humidity changes. Most of the boxes were made by the Shaker religious leaders, the male Elders. However, the oval bentwood box had no special religious significance and in fact was being made in Europe over a century before the Shakers even existed.
Their particular style of oval “Shaker boxes” had certain technological steps to assemble. The various parts had jigs and fixtures to assist in making. For example, the outside elongated “swallowtails” had templates for tracing their distinctive shape. The steamed rims were put around a form called a “follower” until they dried to develop their permanent shape. They had machines aid with other parts to help in mass production. In 1829 they built a new machine shop where the machinery was operated by a twenty-six foot diameter water wheel. They were known to have bought newly invented machines that assisted in making certain board pieces that were created by hand up until then.
After the box surfaces are smoothed and sanded in preparation for finish coats. The Shaker boxes were traditionally finished with milk paint made from milk casein, tinted with earth pigments. Milk paint is incredibly durable, lasting 100s of years when used indoors.
Shaker boxes showing their distinctive characteristic elongated “fingers”
The Shakers’ annual production of boxes in 1830 was 1,308. That increased yearly until their peak year of 1836, when they produced 3,650. There was an economic crisis in 1837. Also at this time inexpensive tin and glass containers were becoming available. In spite of these difficulties, Mount Lebanon improved its machinery and had its “golden age”, producing some 77,000 boxes between 1822 and 1865. However, after the American Civil War the production fell to only hundreds annually.
The Shaker Office Deacons kept annual sales accounts starting in 1805. The records show boxes were mostly sold individually, however some “nests” were sold of the graduated boxes. For many years the prices were given in pounds, shillings and pence. For example, the smallest boxes sold for one shilling two pence and the largest ones were four shillings. The “nests” sold for various prices indicating they were not a standard quantity of boxes. The records started using the word “oval” to describe the boxes in 1814. An advertising insert to the Shaker chair catalogues of the mid 1870s gave eleven sizes for their “Fancy Oval Covered Wooden Boxes”. By the mid-1880s the nest of boxes eliminated the two largest and two smallest ones. The “nest” was then seven. | 1,185 | ENGLISH | 1 |
One morning, a class of 3 year olds read A Box Can Be Many Things by Dana Meachen Rau with their teacher. Afterwards, the teacher asked the children, if they had a box what would they do with it? One child said it could be a bed and another suggested that it could be a car. The following day, the teachers presented the children with a selection of boxes, asked the children to choose one and then make it something. Additional construction items were available for these creations including a variety of art materials and fasteners. Some children chose to do the activity more than once.
One boy selected a small box. He placed his beloved unicorn inside and called it a “Home.” On another day, he made a Porsche. A girl announced that she would make a castle using a cylinder box. Later, she wanted to make something else and began a “Christmas box” which evolved into a box to store her toys at home. Another boy also decided to make a house.
A third boy made a car while fourth boy first filled his chosen box with small cars and used it to carry things. He then decided to make a car and placed some people inside it. Finally, he observed a friend who was making a house and decided to make one, too.
A girl put some tissue paper in a wide flat box. She then carefully placed her baby doll inside, and covered the doll with a blanket. The new portable crib accompanied her throughout the morning as she moved around the classroom. Later, she observed a friend making a vehicle and set about making a truck. Another girl made a home for a giraffe that she created out of paper.
A fifth boy wanted to make a car and decided as he began its construction that it would be a police car. He added red and blue lights. Another boy also made a police car after examining the boxes’ markings. The interest in cars continued with another boy who decided to make a particular race car after looking at pictures of race cars in the book Cars by Anne Rockwell. His friend also made a race car after looking at the same book and he added numbers to his vehicle.
Throughout this activity, each child made his or her own decision about what they wished to create or how they wanted use their selected box. Some worked independently and others partnered with teachers. This activity provided the opportunity for the children to use their imaginations, figure out how to make an idea come to life, refine their fine motor skills, focus their attention, and to create a thing of which they were proud. The children clearly demonstrated their understanding that a box can be many things! | <urn:uuid:e5cb8f53-dddc-40da-9640-8e18ca1502c2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.goodshepherdirvington.com/single-post/2018/02/15/A-Box-Can-Be-Many-Things | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00257.warc.gz | en | 0.987073 | 538 | 3.9375 | 4 | [
-0.0026001152582466602,
-0.04375988990068436,
0.17475903034210205,
0.06516963988542557,
-0.45313093066215515,
0.2686740756034851,
-0.05505957081913948,
0.14676478505134583,
-0.2668866813182831,
0.28734487295150757,
0.07898080348968506,
0.13952825963497162,
-0.07820764183998108,
0.281412124... | 10 | One morning, a class of 3 year olds read A Box Can Be Many Things by Dana Meachen Rau with their teacher. Afterwards, the teacher asked the children, if they had a box what would they do with it? One child said it could be a bed and another suggested that it could be a car. The following day, the teachers presented the children with a selection of boxes, asked the children to choose one and then make it something. Additional construction items were available for these creations including a variety of art materials and fasteners. Some children chose to do the activity more than once.
One boy selected a small box. He placed his beloved unicorn inside and called it a “Home.” On another day, he made a Porsche. A girl announced that she would make a castle using a cylinder box. Later, she wanted to make something else and began a “Christmas box” which evolved into a box to store her toys at home. Another boy also decided to make a house.
A third boy made a car while fourth boy first filled his chosen box with small cars and used it to carry things. He then decided to make a car and placed some people inside it. Finally, he observed a friend who was making a house and decided to make one, too.
A girl put some tissue paper in a wide flat box. She then carefully placed her baby doll inside, and covered the doll with a blanket. The new portable crib accompanied her throughout the morning as she moved around the classroom. Later, she observed a friend making a vehicle and set about making a truck. Another girl made a home for a giraffe that she created out of paper.
A fifth boy wanted to make a car and decided as he began its construction that it would be a police car. He added red and blue lights. Another boy also made a police car after examining the boxes’ markings. The interest in cars continued with another boy who decided to make a particular race car after looking at pictures of race cars in the book Cars by Anne Rockwell. His friend also made a race car after looking at the same book and he added numbers to his vehicle.
Throughout this activity, each child made his or her own decision about what they wished to create or how they wanted use their selected box. Some worked independently and others partnered with teachers. This activity provided the opportunity for the children to use their imaginations, figure out how to make an idea come to life, refine their fine motor skills, focus their attention, and to create a thing of which they were proud. The children clearly demonstrated their understanding that a box can be many things! | 527 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Ludwig van Beethoven: the iconic composer. Not only is Beethoven famous for his voluminous music compositions, but he is also well known for his descent into deafness. It amazes one and all to learn that he composed his Ninth Symphony when almost completely deaf. Looking at his life, one can see symptoms that people with hearing loss today share, as well as how even a composer can triumph over it.
Symptoms and Causes of Deafness
Beethoven began reporting symptoms of hearing loss when he was only 25, though it may be likely that his hearing loss began even before then. No one is sure of what caused his hearing loss, though several explanations exist. It may have been due to lead poisoning, a distended inner ear, or even dunking his head in cold water to keep himself awake. Nevertheless, Beethoven reported severe tinnitus and loudness recruitment. With tinnitus, he constantly heard a loud roaring in his inner ear. With loudness recruitment, sounds rang far louder than they actually were in Beethoven’s ears. Near the end of his life, in his mid-50s, the composer had gone almost if not entirely deaf.
The constant nagging of his hearing loss caused Beethoven to undergo mental and social reactions that people with hearing loss may also experience at some level. He became annoyed with how difficult it was to communicate verbally with others and isolated himself. Beethoven also wrote of his increasing despair and thoughts of suicide. When he thought the matter through, though, he concluded he had much art to share with the world still.
Methods of Coping
Besides his resolution to live as an artist, Beethoven had other methods of coping with hearing loss. For composing, he had an amplifier built for his Broadwood piano, helping him feel the music through vibrations sent into the floor and his core. To talk with people, he had hundreds of “conversation books,” in which friends wrote to him what they wanted to say, and he responded either through speech or writing.
Triumph in the End
By the end of his life, Beethoven had composed and conducted some of the world’s most recognizable pieces in classical music. It may even be that he became the father of the Romantic era in music while his hearing loss became its most severe. Although his deafness caused him much suffering, it also may have helped to produce some of his greatest works.
Trust the Experts at Clarity Audiology & Hearing Solutions
Need help with your hearing? Clarity Hearing can help. Clarity Audiology & Hearing Solutions is an independently owned and operated clinic that focuses on quality of care and personalized, friendly service to the surrounding areas of Ellicott City, Catonsville, Columbia. Our Doctors of Audiology are highly trained with advanced degrees and take the time to provide the personalized care and attention that you need and deserve. We provide advanced hearing aid options that personally calibrated with cutting-edge digital technology to fit your hearing loss, your unique ear anatomy, and your individual listening needs.
Come in for a walk-in appointment on Tuesdays & Fridays from 10:00 am to 11:30 am or contact us to schedule an appointment by calling 410-698-6594 or visiting our contact page. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and LinkedIn for more blog posts, news, and updates! | <urn:uuid:960326d3-76a1-41de-b44b-4dc8627e9971> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.clarityhearing.com/blog/beethovens-hearing-loss/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00043.warc.gz | en | 0.988257 | 701 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.014295320957899094,
-0.09377133101224899,
0.2283751666545868,
0.20603178441524506,
-0.9162600040435791,
0.03527753800153732,
0.36356619000434875,
0.32871586084365845,
0.24619266390800476,
-0.4843839406967163,
0.2832121253013611,
-0.37418535351753235,
-0.21452775597572327,
0.009041750803... | 12 | Ludwig van Beethoven: the iconic composer. Not only is Beethoven famous for his voluminous music compositions, but he is also well known for his descent into deafness. It amazes one and all to learn that he composed his Ninth Symphony when almost completely deaf. Looking at his life, one can see symptoms that people with hearing loss today share, as well as how even a composer can triumph over it.
Symptoms and Causes of Deafness
Beethoven began reporting symptoms of hearing loss when he was only 25, though it may be likely that his hearing loss began even before then. No one is sure of what caused his hearing loss, though several explanations exist. It may have been due to lead poisoning, a distended inner ear, or even dunking his head in cold water to keep himself awake. Nevertheless, Beethoven reported severe tinnitus and loudness recruitment. With tinnitus, he constantly heard a loud roaring in his inner ear. With loudness recruitment, sounds rang far louder than they actually were in Beethoven’s ears. Near the end of his life, in his mid-50s, the composer had gone almost if not entirely deaf.
The constant nagging of his hearing loss caused Beethoven to undergo mental and social reactions that people with hearing loss may also experience at some level. He became annoyed with how difficult it was to communicate verbally with others and isolated himself. Beethoven also wrote of his increasing despair and thoughts of suicide. When he thought the matter through, though, he concluded he had much art to share with the world still.
Methods of Coping
Besides his resolution to live as an artist, Beethoven had other methods of coping with hearing loss. For composing, he had an amplifier built for his Broadwood piano, helping him feel the music through vibrations sent into the floor and his core. To talk with people, he had hundreds of “conversation books,” in which friends wrote to him what they wanted to say, and he responded either through speech or writing.
Triumph in the End
By the end of his life, Beethoven had composed and conducted some of the world’s most recognizable pieces in classical music. It may even be that he became the father of the Romantic era in music while his hearing loss became its most severe. Although his deafness caused him much suffering, it also may have helped to produce some of his greatest works.
Trust the Experts at Clarity Audiology & Hearing Solutions
Need help with your hearing? Clarity Hearing can help. Clarity Audiology & Hearing Solutions is an independently owned and operated clinic that focuses on quality of care and personalized, friendly service to the surrounding areas of Ellicott City, Catonsville, Columbia. Our Doctors of Audiology are highly trained with advanced degrees and take the time to provide the personalized care and attention that you need and deserve. We provide advanced hearing aid options that personally calibrated with cutting-edge digital technology to fit your hearing loss, your unique ear anatomy, and your individual listening needs.
Come in for a walk-in appointment on Tuesdays & Fridays from 10:00 am to 11:30 am or contact us to schedule an appointment by calling 410-698-6594 or visiting our contact page. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and LinkedIn for more blog posts, news, and updates! | 688 | ENGLISH | 1 |
When and how was federal income tax introduced?
Taxes have been around for a long period of time. The first form of taxes came from Ancient Egypt as citizens had to pay with labor or with the crops they grew on their land. Traditionally, taxes were mostly conducted on items purchased and imported. In fact, the main motivation of the creation of the United States in the colonies was to break free of the intense grip of the British tax and tariff system they had placed on American colonists. After that, taxes still remained the same, only really being imposed on the purchase of goods and imports. It wasn't until 1913, when the U.S. Congress passed a bill that became the sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, that Congress was allowed to impose a federal income tax on citizens. It was seen as an appropriate way to scale back the taxes on goods to promote more business, but also being able to collect taxes from individual people and businesses. | <urn:uuid:e6bdaf11-245c-4deb-910c-c974cf715448> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.phillytax.net/help/when-and-how-was-federal-income-tax-introduced | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00362.warc.gz | en | 0.992162 | 191 | 3.96875 | 4 | [
-0.5347967743873596,
0.2709929645061493,
0.28228965401649475,
-0.1126246377825737,
-0.2527245879173279,
0.09153721481561661,
0.28555288910865784,
0.15759426355361938,
-0.048680782318115234,
0.39669865369796753,
0.3483225703239441,
0.35558852553367615,
-0.45247358083724976,
0.17268286645412... | 16 | When and how was federal income tax introduced?
Taxes have been around for a long period of time. The first form of taxes came from Ancient Egypt as citizens had to pay with labor or with the crops they grew on their land. Traditionally, taxes were mostly conducted on items purchased and imported. In fact, the main motivation of the creation of the United States in the colonies was to break free of the intense grip of the British tax and tariff system they had placed on American colonists. After that, taxes still remained the same, only really being imposed on the purchase of goods and imports. It wasn't until 1913, when the U.S. Congress passed a bill that became the sixteenth Amendment of the Constitution, that Congress was allowed to impose a federal income tax on citizens. It was seen as an appropriate way to scale back the taxes on goods to promote more business, but also being able to collect taxes from individual people and businesses. | 194 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Emperor Renzong of Song (30 May 1010 – 30 April 1063, Chinese calendar: 14 April 1010（the 3rd year of Dazhongxiangfu, 大中祥符三年） - 29 March 1063 (the 8th year of Jiayou, 嘉祐八年)), personal name Zhao Zhen, was the fourth emperor of the Song dynasty in China. He reigned for about 41 years from 1022 to his death in 1063, and was the longest reigning Song dynasty emperor. He was the sixth son of his predecessor, Emperor Zhenzong, and was succeeded by his cousin's son, Emperor Yingzong, because his own sons died prematurely. His original personal name was Zhao Shouyi but it was changed by imperial decree in 1018 to "Zhao Zhen", which means 'auspicious' in Chinese.
Compared to other famous Chinese emperors, Emperor Renzong is not widely known. His reign marked the high point of Song influence and power but was also the beginning of its slow disintegration that would persist over the next century and a half. One possible reason behind its weakness is its interpretation of its own foreign policy. The official policy of the Song Empire at the time was one of pacifism and this caused the weakening of its military. The Tangut-led Western Xia state took advantage of this deterioration and waged small scale wars against the Song Empire near the borders.
When Emperor Renzong came to power, he issued decrees to strengthen the military and paid massive bribes to the Khitan-led Liao dynasty, an adversary of Western Xia, in the hope that this would ensure the safety of the Song Empire. However, these policies involved a heavy price. Taxes were increased severely and the peasants lived in a state of perpetual poverty. This eventually caused organised rebellions to take place throughout the country and the breakdown of the Song government.
However, according to the records of History of Song, Renzong was considered to be merciful, tolerant, modest and frugal, and seldom revealed his feelings on expressions. One popular folk story of him was about that Emperor Renzong felt hungry one night and was eager to eat mutton. When the servant was about to ordered the cooks to prepare, Renzong stopped him, explained that this may cause waste if the cook kept cooking mutton from then on, and he preferred to suffer hunger rather than waste too much. Renzong ordered that officers of government must be very cautious to use death penalty, and if an officer once wrongly sentenced an innocent person to death, he would never get promoted. Renzong once said to his near ministers that: "I have never used the word 'death' to scold others, how dare I abuse the death penalty?"
During Emperor Renzong's reign, the culture of Song Dynasty, especially literature, began to prosper. Many most famous litterateurs and poets in Chinese history lived or started their creating careers during his reign, such as Fan Zhongyan, Ouyang Xiu and Mei Yaochen. In the 2nd year of Jiayou, the Imperial Examination enrolled some students who became even world-famous in the future, including Su Xun, Su Shi, Su Zhe, Zeng Gong and so on. They then became the most important litterateurs in Chinese history and began a new era of Chinese literature.
Emperor Renzong elevated the 46th-generation descendants of Confucius to the current title of Duke Yansheng. They were previously of lower noble ranks.
According to the 14th-century classical novel Water Margin, the first 27 years of Emperor Renzong's reign were known as the "Era of Three Abundances." But this was followed by a great plague around the year 1048 that decimated the population. It was only the prayers of the priests from the Taoist sect Way of the Celestial Masters that eventually lifted this pestilence. The imperial emissary who had been sent to the Taoist monastery recklessly entered the Suppression of Demons Hall, thinking the stories of demons was a hoax to delude gullible people. | <urn:uuid:51693eb1-96fa-4b47-b077-7b19aabae9d7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://alchetron.com/Emperor-Renzong-of-Song | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00072.warc.gz | en | 0.981181 | 870 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.24628964066505432,
0.2049383521080017,
0.28374069929122925,
-0.4939001798629761,
-0.009480495937168598,
0.300027996301651,
-0.017594944685697556,
0.12893247604370117,
0.13877572119235992,
-0.12733101844787598,
0.38283565640449524,
-0.039378222078084946,
0.39127227663993835,
0.2975641191... | 1 | Emperor Renzong of Song (30 May 1010 – 30 April 1063, Chinese calendar: 14 April 1010（the 3rd year of Dazhongxiangfu, 大中祥符三年） - 29 March 1063 (the 8th year of Jiayou, 嘉祐八年)), personal name Zhao Zhen, was the fourth emperor of the Song dynasty in China. He reigned for about 41 years from 1022 to his death in 1063, and was the longest reigning Song dynasty emperor. He was the sixth son of his predecessor, Emperor Zhenzong, and was succeeded by his cousin's son, Emperor Yingzong, because his own sons died prematurely. His original personal name was Zhao Shouyi but it was changed by imperial decree in 1018 to "Zhao Zhen", which means 'auspicious' in Chinese.
Compared to other famous Chinese emperors, Emperor Renzong is not widely known. His reign marked the high point of Song influence and power but was also the beginning of its slow disintegration that would persist over the next century and a half. One possible reason behind its weakness is its interpretation of its own foreign policy. The official policy of the Song Empire at the time was one of pacifism and this caused the weakening of its military. The Tangut-led Western Xia state took advantage of this deterioration and waged small scale wars against the Song Empire near the borders.
When Emperor Renzong came to power, he issued decrees to strengthen the military and paid massive bribes to the Khitan-led Liao dynasty, an adversary of Western Xia, in the hope that this would ensure the safety of the Song Empire. However, these policies involved a heavy price. Taxes were increased severely and the peasants lived in a state of perpetual poverty. This eventually caused organised rebellions to take place throughout the country and the breakdown of the Song government.
However, according to the records of History of Song, Renzong was considered to be merciful, tolerant, modest and frugal, and seldom revealed his feelings on expressions. One popular folk story of him was about that Emperor Renzong felt hungry one night and was eager to eat mutton. When the servant was about to ordered the cooks to prepare, Renzong stopped him, explained that this may cause waste if the cook kept cooking mutton from then on, and he preferred to suffer hunger rather than waste too much. Renzong ordered that officers of government must be very cautious to use death penalty, and if an officer once wrongly sentenced an innocent person to death, he would never get promoted. Renzong once said to his near ministers that: "I have never used the word 'death' to scold others, how dare I abuse the death penalty?"
During Emperor Renzong's reign, the culture of Song Dynasty, especially literature, began to prosper. Many most famous litterateurs and poets in Chinese history lived or started their creating careers during his reign, such as Fan Zhongyan, Ouyang Xiu and Mei Yaochen. In the 2nd year of Jiayou, the Imperial Examination enrolled some students who became even world-famous in the future, including Su Xun, Su Shi, Su Zhe, Zeng Gong and so on. They then became the most important litterateurs in Chinese history and began a new era of Chinese literature.
Emperor Renzong elevated the 46th-generation descendants of Confucius to the current title of Duke Yansheng. They were previously of lower noble ranks.
According to the 14th-century classical novel Water Margin, the first 27 years of Emperor Renzong's reign were known as the "Era of Three Abundances." But this was followed by a great plague around the year 1048 that decimated the population. It was only the prayers of the priests from the Taoist sect Way of the Celestial Masters that eventually lifted this pestilence. The imperial emissary who had been sent to the Taoist monastery recklessly entered the Suppression of Demons Hall, thinking the stories of demons was a hoax to delude gullible people. | 891 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Edward II of England reigned as king from 1307 to 1327 CE. Succeeding his father Edward I of England (r. 1272-1307 CE), his reign saw a disastrous defeat to the Scots at Bannockburn in June 1314 CE, and the king’s lack of political and military talents as well as his excessive patronage of friends resulted in his kingdom descending into anarchy. Forced to abdicate by his wife Isabella of France and her lover Roger Mortimer, Edward II was imprisoned and then murdered in Berkeley Castle in September 1327 CE. Edward was succeeded by his young son who became Edward III of England (r. 1327-1377 CE).
Edward was born on 25 April 1284 CE at Caernarfon Castle in Wales, the son of Edward I of England and Eleanor of Castile (b. c. 1242 CE). The prince was athletic, intelligent and keen on the arts but was prone, like most of his Plantagenet ancestors, to a violent and stubborn temper. Another peculiarity was Edward’s passion for manual labour and skills like thatching rather than such traditional knightly pursuits as the medieval tournament. Edward had three elder brothers, but these had all died by the end of 1284 CE, leaving the prince as heir to the throne at a somewhat empty court and perhaps explaining his tendency to spend time with commoners. Edward was formally made the Prince of Wales by his father in 1301 CE, the first eldest son of an English monarch to be awarded this title in a tradition which still continues today.
Edward I had conquered Wales and had been seemingly intent on adding Scotland to his kingdom but his death while on campaign in July 1307 CE gave the Scots a much-needed reprieve. Robert the Bruce had made himself king in February 1306 CE with the support of the Scottish northern barons, and the country was very far from giving up its independence despite Edward I's repeated attacks.
Edward II was crowned on 25 February 1308 CE in Westminster Abbey; he was just 23 years old. His reign would be a disaster, and the only quality he seemed to share with his warrior-king father was his unusual height. The young king had no stomach for warfare and largely ignored his father’s wishes to continue the campaigns in Scotland which allowed King Robert to pick off one by one the English-held castles in his kingdom and to make regular raids into northern England seemingly at will. Not until 1314 CE did Edward lead an army to Scotland, the motivation being the siege of the English-held Stirling Castle. Edward’s force greatly outnumbered the Scots led by Robert the Bruce (15-20,000 v. 10,000 men), but this advantage and the mobility of Edward’s 2,000 heavy cavalry were negated by Bruce’s choice of a narrow ford as the battle site. Edward was thus roundly defeated at the Battle of Bannockburn on 23 and 24 June 1314 CE, and the king narrowly escaped with his own life. Scotland had effectively reasserted its independence, and Robert continued to raid northern England, almost capturing York in 1319 CE.
A Divided England
Leaving foreign affairs to look after themselves, Edward II mostly spent his time with his pleasure-seeking friends amongst the comforts and attractions of London. One of these associates was Piers Gaveston (aka Peter de Gabaston) who had, despite his humble origins as the son of a mere knight, been made the Earl of Cornwall. Edward may have had a homosexual relationship with Gaveston (historians disagree on this point), but certainly his special favour is indicated in his gift of the earldom, one of the richest land areas and a title usually reserved for the sons of reigning monarchs. Whatever the real relationship between the two men, Edward did pursue convention and arranged for his niece Margaret de Clare to marry his special friend. In addition, the king had married Isabella (b. c. 1289 CE), the daughter of Philip IV of France (r. 1285-1314 CE) on 25 January 1308 CE, a diplomatic tie of significance and a union which produced an heir, Edward, born on 13 November 1312 CE and three more children after that.
While the king was absent marrying Isabella in France, Gaveston acted as his regent, upsetting just about everyone with his arrogant attitude and policies and ensuring that he was effectively exiled to Ireland when Edward returned to England. Gaveston did not stay away long but was eventually imprisoned and beheaded in June 1312 CE by Thomas, Earl of Lancaster who had organised a circle of powerful barons with the express purpose of ridding the kingdom of the troublesome earl. Lancaster and his supporters were also keen to formally curb the king’s powers and strengthen those of Parliament, a process begun in September 1311 CE with the appointment of 21 Ordainers to look after the realm’s justice and finances. The barons also insisted they henceforth vet royal appointments, that any war was to be waged only with their consent, and local sheriffs should no longer be appointed by the Crown.
Civil War & Abdication
Edward’s kingdom became split into two groups: those for and those in opposition to their ineffectual king. The former were led by Hugh le Despenser, who had replaced Gaveston as the king’s favourite (and probably lover), and the latter by Lancaster. The division even led to all-out warfare with the royalists defeating a rebel army at the Battle of Boroughbridge in Yorkshire in March 1322 CE. Edward then had Lancaster executed (the earl had the misfortune to have an incompetent axeman who needed three blows to do the deed) and summoned a parliament at York to remove any limits he saw to his royal power. There followed a persecution and purge of anyone deemed to have supported Lancaster, but another attempt to invade Scotland only ended in another ignominious defeat in which the king was forced to flee for his life to York. Edward had a knack for choosing the wrong friends, and his military failures were not at all what was expected from a medieval king.
Unfortunately for Edward, he had an enemy closer than he thought. One of the anti-royalist leaders, Roger Mortimer (1287-1330 CE) had been imprisoned in the Tower of London by the king but he managed to escape in August 1324 CE thanks to a rope ladder. Mortimer would become the lover of Edward’s wife Isabella, who had clearly had enough of her husband’s infidelity. The couple set up shop in France where the French king Philip V had been at war with Edward over control of Gascony since early 1324 CE. The queen was said to have worn black and a veil thereafter to demonstrate that even if her husband was not dead yet, their marriage certainly was. Crucially, Isabella had with her Edward’s teenage heir who could be installed as an easily manipulated puppet ruler when she had disposed of her husband. An army of mercenaries was raised for just that purpose, and it landed in Orwell in Suffolk, England in September-October 1326 CE.
Edward had no response, even if the tiny invasion force consisted of a mere 1500 men, as his supporters deserted him and it was now all too clear his own barons were ready for a change. Edward at first fled to South Wales while Isabella set up court at Gloucester but the former king was eventually captured and confined first at Kenilworth Castle and then Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire. Edward was obliged to formally abdicate on 24 January 1327 CE, the excuses given by his captors for their right to strip him of his divine authority ranging from incompetence to sodomy. The young Prince Edward was declared king, and there then followed a purge of Edward II’s entourage, including the brutal execution of Hugh le Despenser, hanged, drawn, and quartered as a traitor.
Edward’s reign had seen some success amongst all the grief. Exports to France, especially wool, were greatly increased, significantly improving the economy, and the king founded Oxford University’s Oriel College in 1326 CE. These were but small matters, though, when set against the defeats in Scotland and the disgraceful shenanigans of his inner court. Perhaps the most damning of all indicators of the king’s unpopularity was the claim by an Exeter tanner in 1318 CE, one John Powderham, who turned up one day at court and boldly announced that he was the rightful king, explaining that he had been exchanged as a babe with Edward the imposter. That people were willing to give this credence was indicative of just how far short Edward fell of people’s expectations as to how a rightful king should act and what talents for rulership they should have inherited from their forefathers.
Death & Successor
Edward II, aged just 43, was murdered on 21 September 1327 CE at what had become his prison, the castle keep of Berkeley Castle. The orders for the execution likely came directly from his wife Isabella and her consort Roger Mortimer who quickly tired of the rumours and plots by the old king’s supporters to restore him to his throne. Wishing to make it look like Edward had died a natural death, he was starved of food, but he still stubbornly clung on to life. The next method employed - if we are to believe later medieval chroniclers - was more successful but considerably more brutal: a red hot iron bar was shoved up into the ex-king’s bowels. Whatever the actual method of execution, Edward was at least granted a decent burial in Gloucester Cathedral. Edward II’s brutal reign and sticky comeuppance would later be immortalised in Christopher Marlowe’s historical play Edward II (c. 1592 CE) which helped secure the king’s lasting infamy as one of England’s worst-ever monarchs.
Edward was succeeded by his son Edward III of England, final part of the trio that completed the ’Edwardian’ period of medieval England (1272-1377 CE). Edward II reigned for half a century during which he gained revenge for his father’s murder by having Roger Mortimer executed and banishing his mother to a life of confinement at Castle Rising in Norfolk. The new king reunited the English barons, made lasting architectural contributions such as the extension of Windsor Castle, and acquired, with the help of his son (yet another Edward but better known as the Black Prince), significant territories in France. | <urn:uuid:35c40859-d133-40b7-9583-882a96f2b867> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ancient.eu/Edward_II_of_England/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00049.warc.gz | en | 0.988426 | 2,188 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.30362457036972046,
0.19250628352165222,
0.2548809349536896,
-0.031300898641347885,
-0.1877511590719223,
-0.407438725233078,
0.40580040216445923,
-0.21987369656562805,
0.03687874972820282,
0.13307978212833405,
-0.06137484684586525,
-0.5702758431434631,
0.5607187747955322,
-0.152598112821... | 1 | Edward II of England reigned as king from 1307 to 1327 CE. Succeeding his father Edward I of England (r. 1272-1307 CE), his reign saw a disastrous defeat to the Scots at Bannockburn in June 1314 CE, and the king’s lack of political and military talents as well as his excessive patronage of friends resulted in his kingdom descending into anarchy. Forced to abdicate by his wife Isabella of France and her lover Roger Mortimer, Edward II was imprisoned and then murdered in Berkeley Castle in September 1327 CE. Edward was succeeded by his young son who became Edward III of England (r. 1327-1377 CE).
Edward was born on 25 April 1284 CE at Caernarfon Castle in Wales, the son of Edward I of England and Eleanor of Castile (b. c. 1242 CE). The prince was athletic, intelligent and keen on the arts but was prone, like most of his Plantagenet ancestors, to a violent and stubborn temper. Another peculiarity was Edward’s passion for manual labour and skills like thatching rather than such traditional knightly pursuits as the medieval tournament. Edward had three elder brothers, but these had all died by the end of 1284 CE, leaving the prince as heir to the throne at a somewhat empty court and perhaps explaining his tendency to spend time with commoners. Edward was formally made the Prince of Wales by his father in 1301 CE, the first eldest son of an English monarch to be awarded this title in a tradition which still continues today.
Edward I had conquered Wales and had been seemingly intent on adding Scotland to his kingdom but his death while on campaign in July 1307 CE gave the Scots a much-needed reprieve. Robert the Bruce had made himself king in February 1306 CE with the support of the Scottish northern barons, and the country was very far from giving up its independence despite Edward I's repeated attacks.
Edward II was crowned on 25 February 1308 CE in Westminster Abbey; he was just 23 years old. His reign would be a disaster, and the only quality he seemed to share with his warrior-king father was his unusual height. The young king had no stomach for warfare and largely ignored his father’s wishes to continue the campaigns in Scotland which allowed King Robert to pick off one by one the English-held castles in his kingdom and to make regular raids into northern England seemingly at will. Not until 1314 CE did Edward lead an army to Scotland, the motivation being the siege of the English-held Stirling Castle. Edward’s force greatly outnumbered the Scots led by Robert the Bruce (15-20,000 v. 10,000 men), but this advantage and the mobility of Edward’s 2,000 heavy cavalry were negated by Bruce’s choice of a narrow ford as the battle site. Edward was thus roundly defeated at the Battle of Bannockburn on 23 and 24 June 1314 CE, and the king narrowly escaped with his own life. Scotland had effectively reasserted its independence, and Robert continued to raid northern England, almost capturing York in 1319 CE.
A Divided England
Leaving foreign affairs to look after themselves, Edward II mostly spent his time with his pleasure-seeking friends amongst the comforts and attractions of London. One of these associates was Piers Gaveston (aka Peter de Gabaston) who had, despite his humble origins as the son of a mere knight, been made the Earl of Cornwall. Edward may have had a homosexual relationship with Gaveston (historians disagree on this point), but certainly his special favour is indicated in his gift of the earldom, one of the richest land areas and a title usually reserved for the sons of reigning monarchs. Whatever the real relationship between the two men, Edward did pursue convention and arranged for his niece Margaret de Clare to marry his special friend. In addition, the king had married Isabella (b. c. 1289 CE), the daughter of Philip IV of France (r. 1285-1314 CE) on 25 January 1308 CE, a diplomatic tie of significance and a union which produced an heir, Edward, born on 13 November 1312 CE and three more children after that.
While the king was absent marrying Isabella in France, Gaveston acted as his regent, upsetting just about everyone with his arrogant attitude and policies and ensuring that he was effectively exiled to Ireland when Edward returned to England. Gaveston did not stay away long but was eventually imprisoned and beheaded in June 1312 CE by Thomas, Earl of Lancaster who had organised a circle of powerful barons with the express purpose of ridding the kingdom of the troublesome earl. Lancaster and his supporters were also keen to formally curb the king’s powers and strengthen those of Parliament, a process begun in September 1311 CE with the appointment of 21 Ordainers to look after the realm’s justice and finances. The barons also insisted they henceforth vet royal appointments, that any war was to be waged only with their consent, and local sheriffs should no longer be appointed by the Crown.
Civil War & Abdication
Edward’s kingdom became split into two groups: those for and those in opposition to their ineffectual king. The former were led by Hugh le Despenser, who had replaced Gaveston as the king’s favourite (and probably lover), and the latter by Lancaster. The division even led to all-out warfare with the royalists defeating a rebel army at the Battle of Boroughbridge in Yorkshire in March 1322 CE. Edward then had Lancaster executed (the earl had the misfortune to have an incompetent axeman who needed three blows to do the deed) and summoned a parliament at York to remove any limits he saw to his royal power. There followed a persecution and purge of anyone deemed to have supported Lancaster, but another attempt to invade Scotland only ended in another ignominious defeat in which the king was forced to flee for his life to York. Edward had a knack for choosing the wrong friends, and his military failures were not at all what was expected from a medieval king.
Unfortunately for Edward, he had an enemy closer than he thought. One of the anti-royalist leaders, Roger Mortimer (1287-1330 CE) had been imprisoned in the Tower of London by the king but he managed to escape in August 1324 CE thanks to a rope ladder. Mortimer would become the lover of Edward’s wife Isabella, who had clearly had enough of her husband’s infidelity. The couple set up shop in France where the French king Philip V had been at war with Edward over control of Gascony since early 1324 CE. The queen was said to have worn black and a veil thereafter to demonstrate that even if her husband was not dead yet, their marriage certainly was. Crucially, Isabella had with her Edward’s teenage heir who could be installed as an easily manipulated puppet ruler when she had disposed of her husband. An army of mercenaries was raised for just that purpose, and it landed in Orwell in Suffolk, England in September-October 1326 CE.
Edward had no response, even if the tiny invasion force consisted of a mere 1500 men, as his supporters deserted him and it was now all too clear his own barons were ready for a change. Edward at first fled to South Wales while Isabella set up court at Gloucester but the former king was eventually captured and confined first at Kenilworth Castle and then Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire. Edward was obliged to formally abdicate on 24 January 1327 CE, the excuses given by his captors for their right to strip him of his divine authority ranging from incompetence to sodomy. The young Prince Edward was declared king, and there then followed a purge of Edward II’s entourage, including the brutal execution of Hugh le Despenser, hanged, drawn, and quartered as a traitor.
Edward’s reign had seen some success amongst all the grief. Exports to France, especially wool, were greatly increased, significantly improving the economy, and the king founded Oxford University’s Oriel College in 1326 CE. These were but small matters, though, when set against the defeats in Scotland and the disgraceful shenanigans of his inner court. Perhaps the most damning of all indicators of the king’s unpopularity was the claim by an Exeter tanner in 1318 CE, one John Powderham, who turned up one day at court and boldly announced that he was the rightful king, explaining that he had been exchanged as a babe with Edward the imposter. That people were willing to give this credence was indicative of just how far short Edward fell of people’s expectations as to how a rightful king should act and what talents for rulership they should have inherited from their forefathers.
Death & Successor
Edward II, aged just 43, was murdered on 21 September 1327 CE at what had become his prison, the castle keep of Berkeley Castle. The orders for the execution likely came directly from his wife Isabella and her consort Roger Mortimer who quickly tired of the rumours and plots by the old king’s supporters to restore him to his throne. Wishing to make it look like Edward had died a natural death, he was starved of food, but he still stubbornly clung on to life. The next method employed - if we are to believe later medieval chroniclers - was more successful but considerably more brutal: a red hot iron bar was shoved up into the ex-king’s bowels. Whatever the actual method of execution, Edward was at least granted a decent burial in Gloucester Cathedral. Edward II’s brutal reign and sticky comeuppance would later be immortalised in Christopher Marlowe’s historical play Edward II (c. 1592 CE) which helped secure the king’s lasting infamy as one of England’s worst-ever monarchs.
Edward was succeeded by his son Edward III of England, final part of the trio that completed the ’Edwardian’ period of medieval England (1272-1377 CE). Edward II reigned for half a century during which he gained revenge for his father’s murder by having Roger Mortimer executed and banishing his mother to a life of confinement at Castle Rising in Norfolk. The new king reunited the English barons, made lasting architectural contributions such as the extension of Windsor Castle, and acquired, with the help of his son (yet another Edward but better known as the Black Prince), significant territories in France. | 2,277 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Robinson Crusoe Island is one of the Juan Fernandez Islands, situated 416 miles west of San Antonio, Chile. The island was the home to Alexander Selkirk, a castaway sailor, for four years from 1704 to 1709. The island may have inspired Daniel Defoe to write his fictional novel “Robinson Crusoe” in 1719, based on Alexander Selkirk. The story is based on just one survivor during that period who might have been known by Defoe. The island was renamed from to "Robinson Crusoe Island" from the former "Mas a Tierra" in 1966 by the Chilean government in order to reflect the literary stories linked to it and in an effort to attract more tourists.
Geography And Climate Of The Robinson Crusoe Island
Robinson Crusoe Island is characterized by mountains and undulating terrains which were formed by the ancient lava flow building up from the several volcanic activities. The highest point on the island is at El Yunque, measuring 3,002 feet above the sea level. The steep valleys and ridges on the island have been formed by intense erosion. A narrow peninsula, Cordon Escarpado, has been formed on the southwestern part of the island. A volcanic activity on the Robinson Crusoe Island may have taken place in 1743 but the event has yet to be confirmed. A day long eruption began on the island on February 20, 1835 at the submarine vent about a mile north of Punta Bacalao. The island is characterized by subtropical climate regulated by the cold Humboldt waves. The temperatures on the island ranges from 3 degrees Celsius to 34 degrees Celsius with an annual mean temperature of 15.4 degrees Celsius. The island experiences high rainfall during winter with occasional frost.
Flora And Fauna Of The Robinson Crusoe Island
The regions of Fernandez, including the Juan Fernandez archipelago, are florist regions. The islands are within the Antarctic Florist Kingdom and are also included in the Neotropical Kingdom. The Robinson Crusoe Island has been part of World Biosphere Reserve since 1977 and has been considered to be of great scientific significance due to its endemic plant species and several faunal species. The Lactoridaceae is the major endemic plant species found on the the island. The Juan Fernandez firecrown is one of the endemic and threatened bird species found on the island.
History Of The Robinson Crusoe Island
The Island was named after Juan Fernandez who was the first Spanish sailor and explorer to land on the island in 1574. The island was also known as Mas a Tierra. In 1704, Alexander Selkirk was marooned as a castaway on Robinson Crusoe Island. He stayed on the island in loneliness for more than four years. Selkirk requested to be left on the island after he raised concern about the seaworthiness of his ship. The island was also described as a small detention center but was soon abandoned as the island became deserted before it became a colony in late 19th century. The Island was hit by the tsunami in February 2010, following an earthquake of a magnitude of 8.8. Several people lost their lives and the coastal villages were washed away.
Alexander Selkirk: The Marooned Sailor
Alexander Selkirk was a Royal Navy officer who spent about four years and four months on Robinson Crusoe Island as castaway between marooned by his captain. Alexander survived the ordeal but succumbed to tropical illnesses years later while serving in West Africa. Growing up, Alexander was an unruly youth. He joined the voyage to the South Pacific during the War of Spanish Succession. One of such expeditions called for a provision at the Robinson Crusoe Island where Alexander asked to be left there. All he was left with were a knife, a bible, clothing, and gunpowder. Selkirk quickly became adept at hunting and making use of resources that were present on the island. He was eventually rescued by Woodes Rogers with his survival widely published after his return to England. He became an inspiration to novelist Daniel Defoe.
Why Was Selkirk Castaway On The Island?
After parting ways with William Damper, Captain Stradling steered the Cinque Port to Mas a Tierra, one of the Juan Fernandez Islands. Selkirk had a genuine concern about the safety of their ship and he wanted to make necessary repairs before they could sail. He told Stradling that he would rather stay on the island rather than accompany them in a leaky vessel. Having been a troublemaker throughout the expedition, Stradling took Selkirk on his offer and dropped him on the island with just a cooking pot, a knife, hatchet, bible, and some clothing. Although Selkirk regretted his rashness, Stradling refused to let him back to the ship. True to his concerns, Cinque Ports did not make it to its destination. It was found off the coast of the present-day Colombia while Stradling and some crew were forced to surrender to the Spanish and were taken to Peru where they were harshly treated.
Selkirk’s Life On The Island
Selkirk’s life on the island away from humans was an interesting episode. Initially, he settled along the shores of the island where he ate spiny lobsters and checked the ocean daily for any help. During this time he suffered loneliness, misery, and remorse. The sea lions that came to the beach for their mating season pushed him to the interior of the island. His life improved once he moved to the interior of the island. He could access more food with feral goats who were introduced by earlier sailors providing him with milk and meat. The cabbage leaves and dried pepper berries provided spices for his food. He would be attacked at night by rats but he would domesticate feral cats which helped him keep away the rats. He was able to build two huts from pepper tree of which one he used as his kitchen and the other as a bedroom. When his clothes wore out, he made new ones from goat skin. He found comfort from reading the bible and singing psalms. During his stay on the island, two Spanish vessels came to anchor but he could not risk being captured.
The Much Awaited Rescue
Selkirk’s much-awaited rescue came on February 2, 1709, by a ship that was piloted by William Damper. He was incoherent with joy after four years and four months without a human companion. The leader of the expedition was Woodes Rogers who jokingly referred to Selkirk as the governor of Robinson Crusoe Island. Selkirk was physically strong and was experiencing a peace of mind at the time of his rescue. After his rescue, Selkirk returned to privateering with a lot of vigor and full of vengeance.
Where is Robinson Crusoe Island?
Robinson Crusoe Island is one of the Juan Fernandez Islands, situated 416 miles west of San Antonio, Chile. The island was the home to Alexander Selkirk, a castaway sailor, for four years from 1704 to 1709. The island may have inspired Daniel Defoe to write his fictional novel “Robinson Crusoe” in 1719, based on Alexander Selkirk.
About the Author
John Misachi is a seasoned writer with 5+ years of experience. His favorite topics include finance, history, geography, agriculture, legal, and sports.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | <urn:uuid:1ffdae14-8213-48bc-8985-b6efd94dde08> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-robinson-crusoe-of-the-robinson-crusoe-island.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607118.51/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122131612-20200122160612-00532.warc.gz | en | 0.981965 | 1,555 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.08318151533603668,
-0.10522864758968353,
0.34970927238464355,
-0.1257931888103485,
0.296316921710968,
-0.04094818979501724,
0.1447036862373352,
0.3425491750240326,
-0.10735547542572021,
0.191831573843956,
0.3658054769039154,
-0.48237454891204834,
-0.16224297881126404,
0.319746732711792,
... | 2 | Robinson Crusoe Island is one of the Juan Fernandez Islands, situated 416 miles west of San Antonio, Chile. The island was the home to Alexander Selkirk, a castaway sailor, for four years from 1704 to 1709. The island may have inspired Daniel Defoe to write his fictional novel “Robinson Crusoe” in 1719, based on Alexander Selkirk. The story is based on just one survivor during that period who might have been known by Defoe. The island was renamed from to "Robinson Crusoe Island" from the former "Mas a Tierra" in 1966 by the Chilean government in order to reflect the literary stories linked to it and in an effort to attract more tourists.
Geography And Climate Of The Robinson Crusoe Island
Robinson Crusoe Island is characterized by mountains and undulating terrains which were formed by the ancient lava flow building up from the several volcanic activities. The highest point on the island is at El Yunque, measuring 3,002 feet above the sea level. The steep valleys and ridges on the island have been formed by intense erosion. A narrow peninsula, Cordon Escarpado, has been formed on the southwestern part of the island. A volcanic activity on the Robinson Crusoe Island may have taken place in 1743 but the event has yet to be confirmed. A day long eruption began on the island on February 20, 1835 at the submarine vent about a mile north of Punta Bacalao. The island is characterized by subtropical climate regulated by the cold Humboldt waves. The temperatures on the island ranges from 3 degrees Celsius to 34 degrees Celsius with an annual mean temperature of 15.4 degrees Celsius. The island experiences high rainfall during winter with occasional frost.
Flora And Fauna Of The Robinson Crusoe Island
The regions of Fernandez, including the Juan Fernandez archipelago, are florist regions. The islands are within the Antarctic Florist Kingdom and are also included in the Neotropical Kingdom. The Robinson Crusoe Island has been part of World Biosphere Reserve since 1977 and has been considered to be of great scientific significance due to its endemic plant species and several faunal species. The Lactoridaceae is the major endemic plant species found on the the island. The Juan Fernandez firecrown is one of the endemic and threatened bird species found on the island.
History Of The Robinson Crusoe Island
The Island was named after Juan Fernandez who was the first Spanish sailor and explorer to land on the island in 1574. The island was also known as Mas a Tierra. In 1704, Alexander Selkirk was marooned as a castaway on Robinson Crusoe Island. He stayed on the island in loneliness for more than four years. Selkirk requested to be left on the island after he raised concern about the seaworthiness of his ship. The island was also described as a small detention center but was soon abandoned as the island became deserted before it became a colony in late 19th century. The Island was hit by the tsunami in February 2010, following an earthquake of a magnitude of 8.8. Several people lost their lives and the coastal villages were washed away.
Alexander Selkirk: The Marooned Sailor
Alexander Selkirk was a Royal Navy officer who spent about four years and four months on Robinson Crusoe Island as castaway between marooned by his captain. Alexander survived the ordeal but succumbed to tropical illnesses years later while serving in West Africa. Growing up, Alexander was an unruly youth. He joined the voyage to the South Pacific during the War of Spanish Succession. One of such expeditions called for a provision at the Robinson Crusoe Island where Alexander asked to be left there. All he was left with were a knife, a bible, clothing, and gunpowder. Selkirk quickly became adept at hunting and making use of resources that were present on the island. He was eventually rescued by Woodes Rogers with his survival widely published after his return to England. He became an inspiration to novelist Daniel Defoe.
Why Was Selkirk Castaway On The Island?
After parting ways with William Damper, Captain Stradling steered the Cinque Port to Mas a Tierra, one of the Juan Fernandez Islands. Selkirk had a genuine concern about the safety of their ship and he wanted to make necessary repairs before they could sail. He told Stradling that he would rather stay on the island rather than accompany them in a leaky vessel. Having been a troublemaker throughout the expedition, Stradling took Selkirk on his offer and dropped him on the island with just a cooking pot, a knife, hatchet, bible, and some clothing. Although Selkirk regretted his rashness, Stradling refused to let him back to the ship. True to his concerns, Cinque Ports did not make it to its destination. It was found off the coast of the present-day Colombia while Stradling and some crew were forced to surrender to the Spanish and were taken to Peru where they were harshly treated.
Selkirk’s Life On The Island
Selkirk’s life on the island away from humans was an interesting episode. Initially, he settled along the shores of the island where he ate spiny lobsters and checked the ocean daily for any help. During this time he suffered loneliness, misery, and remorse. The sea lions that came to the beach for their mating season pushed him to the interior of the island. His life improved once he moved to the interior of the island. He could access more food with feral goats who were introduced by earlier sailors providing him with milk and meat. The cabbage leaves and dried pepper berries provided spices for his food. He would be attacked at night by rats but he would domesticate feral cats which helped him keep away the rats. He was able to build two huts from pepper tree of which one he used as his kitchen and the other as a bedroom. When his clothes wore out, he made new ones from goat skin. He found comfort from reading the bible and singing psalms. During his stay on the island, two Spanish vessels came to anchor but he could not risk being captured.
The Much Awaited Rescue
Selkirk’s much-awaited rescue came on February 2, 1709, by a ship that was piloted by William Damper. He was incoherent with joy after four years and four months without a human companion. The leader of the expedition was Woodes Rogers who jokingly referred to Selkirk as the governor of Robinson Crusoe Island. Selkirk was physically strong and was experiencing a peace of mind at the time of his rescue. After his rescue, Selkirk returned to privateering with a lot of vigor and full of vengeance.
Where is Robinson Crusoe Island?
Robinson Crusoe Island is one of the Juan Fernandez Islands, situated 416 miles west of San Antonio, Chile. The island was the home to Alexander Selkirk, a castaway sailor, for four years from 1704 to 1709. The island may have inspired Daniel Defoe to write his fictional novel “Robinson Crusoe” in 1719, based on Alexander Selkirk.
About the Author
John Misachi is a seasoned writer with 5+ years of experience. His favorite topics include finance, history, geography, agriculture, legal, and sports.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | 1,597 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Thus inequalities in schooling, health care or transport facilities among regions were patent: In he became the youngest captain in the Spanish army.
Thus, Franco's rule has been characterized as authoritarian rather than totalitarian. This made him the youngest major in the Spanish army.
In addition to receiving government subsidies, the church regained its dominant position in the education system, and laws conformed to Catholic dogma. Some official jobs required a "good behaviour" statement by a priest. The coup had failed in the attempt to bring a swift victory, but the Spanish Civil War had begun.
Negotiations were successful with the last two on 25 July and aircraft began to arrive in Tetouan on 2 August. Por la Gracia de Dios is a technical, legal formulation which states sovereign dignity in absolute monarchies and had been used only by monarchs before.
During crucial campaigns against the Moroccan rebels, the legion played a decisive role in bringing the revolt to an end. Franco volunteered for active duty in the colonial campaigns in Spanish Morocco that had begun in and was transferred there in at age General Francisco Franco General Franco was born in and he died in International firms established their factories in Spain: At a time in which many Spanish officers were characterized by sloppiness and lack of professionalism, young Franco quickly showed his ability to command troops effectively and soon won a reputation for complete professional dedication.
He stayed out of politics until he was ordered to put down a strike by coal miners in the Asturias. He maintained a careful balance among them and largely left the execution of policy to his appointees, thereby placing himself as arbiter above the storm of ordinary political conflict.
Seven fundamental laws decreed during his rule provided the regime with a semblance of constitutionalism, but they were developed after the fact, usually to legitimize an existing situation or distribution of power.
Franco decreed this law without having consulted the Cortes, however, and he retained the sole right to determine whether a referendum would be called. After landing in Spain, Franco and his army marched toward Madridwhich was held by the government.
In Octoberduring a bloody uprising of Asturian miners who opposed the admission of three conservative members to the government, Franco was called in to quell the revolt. His survival marked him permanently in the eyes of the native troops as a man of baraka good luck.Francisco Franco was born on December 4,in El Ferrol, Spain, a northwestern port city with a long history of kaleiseminari.com: Dec 04, Thus, Franco's rule has been characterized as authoritarian rather than totalitarian.
Whereas there is generally consensus among analysts in designating the regime as authoritarian, there is less agreement concerning the fascist component of Franco.
The family of Spain’s late fascist dictator Francisco Franco will use all possible legal means to prevent a government plan to move their ancestor’s During Franco’s rule. Francisco Franco led a successful military rebellion to overthrow Spain's democratic republic in the Spanish Civil War (—39), subsequently establishing an often brutal dictatorship that Born: Dec 04, May 13, · In “Homage to Catalonia,” his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell remarks that Francisco Franco’s military uprising against Spain’s elected government “was an attempt not so.
Francisco Franco, the Spanish dictator and general, was perhaps Europe's most successful fascist leader because he actually managed to survive in power until his natural death.Download | <urn:uuid:4d6a8b4b-d3c8-44ca-a493-fb1bc82add73> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://hevoqid.kaleiseminari.com/the-rule-of-francisco-franco-12536qo.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00108.warc.gz | en | 0.980455 | 706 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.1585969477891922,
0.3922387659549713,
0.035974547266960144,
-0.37015771865844727,
-0.3211064040660858,
0.13103771209716797,
0.12464987486600876,
0.4689124822616577,
0.07103566825389862,
-0.22261103987693787,
-0.3135494589805603,
-0.24891197681427002,
-0.07366076111793518,
0.570313811302... | 1 | Thus inequalities in schooling, health care or transport facilities among regions were patent: In he became the youngest captain in the Spanish army.
Thus, Franco's rule has been characterized as authoritarian rather than totalitarian. This made him the youngest major in the Spanish army.
In addition to receiving government subsidies, the church regained its dominant position in the education system, and laws conformed to Catholic dogma. Some official jobs required a "good behaviour" statement by a priest. The coup had failed in the attempt to bring a swift victory, but the Spanish Civil War had begun.
Negotiations were successful with the last two on 25 July and aircraft began to arrive in Tetouan on 2 August. Por la Gracia de Dios is a technical, legal formulation which states sovereign dignity in absolute monarchies and had been used only by monarchs before.
During crucial campaigns against the Moroccan rebels, the legion played a decisive role in bringing the revolt to an end. Franco volunteered for active duty in the colonial campaigns in Spanish Morocco that had begun in and was transferred there in at age General Francisco Franco General Franco was born in and he died in International firms established their factories in Spain: At a time in which many Spanish officers were characterized by sloppiness and lack of professionalism, young Franco quickly showed his ability to command troops effectively and soon won a reputation for complete professional dedication.
He stayed out of politics until he was ordered to put down a strike by coal miners in the Asturias. He maintained a careful balance among them and largely left the execution of policy to his appointees, thereby placing himself as arbiter above the storm of ordinary political conflict.
Seven fundamental laws decreed during his rule provided the regime with a semblance of constitutionalism, but they were developed after the fact, usually to legitimize an existing situation or distribution of power.
Franco decreed this law without having consulted the Cortes, however, and he retained the sole right to determine whether a referendum would be called. After landing in Spain, Franco and his army marched toward Madridwhich was held by the government.
In Octoberduring a bloody uprising of Asturian miners who opposed the admission of three conservative members to the government, Franco was called in to quell the revolt. His survival marked him permanently in the eyes of the native troops as a man of baraka good luck.Francisco Franco was born on December 4,in El Ferrol, Spain, a northwestern port city with a long history of kaleiseminari.com: Dec 04, Thus, Franco's rule has been characterized as authoritarian rather than totalitarian.
Whereas there is generally consensus among analysts in designating the regime as authoritarian, there is less agreement concerning the fascist component of Franco.
The family of Spain’s late fascist dictator Francisco Franco will use all possible legal means to prevent a government plan to move their ancestor’s During Franco’s rule. Francisco Franco led a successful military rebellion to overthrow Spain's democratic republic in the Spanish Civil War (—39), subsequently establishing an often brutal dictatorship that Born: Dec 04, May 13, · In “Homage to Catalonia,” his memoir of the Spanish Civil War, George Orwell remarks that Francisco Franco’s military uprising against Spain’s elected government “was an attempt not so.
Francisco Franco, the Spanish dictator and general, was perhaps Europe's most successful fascist leader because he actually managed to survive in power until his natural death.Download | 693 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The bittersweet story of how a geologist finally reached the Moon
In old cabinet drawers and aluminum boxes, Eugene Shoemaker kept his growing collection of minerals. His father took him traveling around Wyoming, where he picked up all kinds of rocks to bring back home. In 5th grade, Gene enrolled at the Buffalo Museum of Science in evening high school level science classes. There was no doubt that he was a science kid.
Shoemaker was born in Los Angeles in 1928 and moved back and forth between there and Buffalo a few times. But at a very early age, he was absolutely enamored with rocks. By nine he was a collector and regularly read geology textbooks. However, despite his enthusiasm, he had no idea how great a scientist he would grow up to be.
After college, he wanted to be a field geologist
Shoemaker finished high school in three years and went right to college at the California Institute of Technology, in 1944. Unfortunately, the geology department was basically shut down for World War II, because many of the geologists were working for the Defense Minerals Program, looking for critical mineral deposits in the U.S.
Gene ended up taking all his geology classes in his last year when the professors came back. After getting his Bachelor’s and Master’s at Caltech, he took a job with the United States Geological Survey. At this point, Gene knew he wanted to be a field geologist, but he didn’t know yet how far that would take him.
Gene was determined to get to the Moon
The nuclear events of World War II left Shoemaker thinking hard about the near future of scientific innovation. He was optimistic. He believed great scientific advancements would happen in his lifetime, including in-person moon exploration. And, in his mind, who better to explore the Moon than a geologist?
“I made up my mind right then and there, I’d be standing at the head of the line, use whatever opportunities came along to be as near as I could to being the most qualified geologist to go to the Moon,” Gene said in an interview for the American Institute of Physics.
For now, though, there wasn’t much Gene could do to get to the Moon. So he focused on his job with the U.S. Geological Survey and did graduate studies at Princeton, while reading lunar research papers on the side. He didn’t tell many people of his secret ambition, but instead worked toward becoming the most qualified field geologist for any future lunar missions.
Gene was very interested in geologic mapping, which is the process of mapping the different kinds of rocks and sediments in an area. It took him to the Hopi Buttes volcanic field in Arizona. The field was full of craters that, to Gene, looked rather like the Moon’s craters. This lead him toward one of his biggest contributions to scientific understanding.
Scientists thought craters were made from volcanic eruptions but Gene had a different idea
At the time, scientists believed craters on Earth and on the Moon were made from explosive volcanic eruptions, but Shoemaker thought otherwise. He got a clue toward the real crater-maker while exploring old volcano vents as part of his job with the Geological Survey.
He was actually looking for uranium but was more interested in the structures left behind by the volcanoes. Following this research, he was sent to old nuclear test sites because the Atomic Energy Commission thought doing underground nuclear explosions would make more plutonium. But to ensure it wouldn’t create an eruption on a volcanic scale, they sent Gene on a classified mission.
Gene’s work took him to Meteor Crater, which led him to a scientific breakthrough
Shoemaker compared the nuclear test sites to the volcanic field and realized there’s a difference between holes made from erupting out of the inside of the Earth versus hitting into the surface from the outside. With this information, he was headed toward the scientific discoveries that distinguished his career.
Not long after, the need for plutonium passed, so they never carried out the explosions. But this research led Gene to something new: Meteor Crater. The crater is almost a mile across and about 550 feet deep, situated in the middle of Arizona. It’s been there as long as anyone can remember. Gene believed it was made by a celestial rock hitting the Earth and that the craters on the Moon were made the same way.
Gene tried to start a lunar geology project before we even sent anything to space
Gene felt the scientific tide shifting and believed that space exploration was coming soon. So, before any satellites were even shot into space, he went to the head of the Geological Survey to plant some seeds for a future moon project. He wanted to use telescopes to start mapping the Moon’s geology.
After several years of having a secret ambition to get to the Moon, Gene finally revealed his interests and started to push them forward. He knew that someone would step on the Moon in his lifetime, and hoped it would be him, but he never imagined how soon it would happen.
The Soviets launched the first satellite into space, pushing Gene to act fast
In 1957, the Soviet Union shot the proverbial starting pistol for the space race, by launching Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, into space. When Gene heard this, he thought, “Oh no! I’m not ready yet! It’s too soon.” He had started pursuing his Moon ambitions, but hadn’t yet finished the volcanic work he was doing.
NASA wasn’t even founded until the next year, but an informal group started around the question of how could we possibly get to the Moon. They brainstormed the math and science it would take to get someone on its rocky surface. And Gene, of course, was part of that group.
Soon enough, Gene and a few other members of the Geological Survey had a meeting for anyone interested in getting into lunar research. Together, they came up with a research program proposal and sent it to the new chief geologist, hoping to work on it over at the newly formed NASA.
Well, the chief geologist wasn’t particularly interested in their lunar proposal and had a lot of other work distracting him. “So at this point, I was starting to look around, because I didn’t know whether the Geological Survey was going to go to the Moon but I was determined that Gene Shoemaker was,” Gene said.
Gene was the first to map the geology of the Moon
Gene took matters into his own hands and, using telescopic photographs and a topographic map of the Moon, he drew up the first geological maps of the Moon. He was forcing his way to become a foremost lunar geologist and was even invited to give a talk about it in Washington D.C.
At the event, Gene got drunk at dinner and gave “one of the best talks, most important talks I ever gave in my life.” He talked about the Copernicus crater on the Moon and, fortunately, the very influential John O’Keafe was in the audience. O’Keafe helped Gene finally get the lunar mapping project up and running.
Meteor Crater gave Gene the evidence he needed for his impact theory
So Gene and a few other geologists worked on lunar mapping, but most geologists were not taking their project very seriously. They didn’t believe NASA would send a spacecraft to the Moon. To them, Gene just had his head in the stars and he’d never get his feet on the Moon.
Around the same time, Gene finally finished his Ph.D. thesis on Meteor Crater. And not long after, he and a small team discovered the first natural occurrence of a mineral called coesite, at Meteor Crater. Finally, here was the evidence to support Gene’s theory that a meteorite impact caused the crater formation.
Coesite is a form of quartz that is made from very high pressure and high temperatures, which are only high enough on the Earth’s crust when a meteorite impacts the ground. So here was the evidence to counteract the volcanic crater-creation theory. Around 1960, Gene went to Germany and found coesite at other craters there, including the 15-mile-across Ries crater.
“That was a big breakthrough, because this was the first demonstration that indeed there are very large structures on the Earth produced by impact, structures very much larger than Meteor Crater, and of course this provided a very important link in identifying craters on the Moon as of impact origin,” Gene said.
With his geological maps of the Moon, Gene was trying to understand its history. He thought its craters were created over a large span of time, by celestial bombardment. He and his team of lunar geologists did experiments in Meteor Crater to study the impact theory and at night they conducted telescope observations at the Lowell Observatory, 40 miles away in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Around this time, 1961 to 1963, the first American astronauts (the Mercury Seven) were going into space. They were all military test pilots and most got to orbit Earth. No one with a science background had been selected to go to space, yet.
Gene’s hopes of being the first to go to the Moon were dashed
But in 1962, Gene realized he wouldn’t be among the first men on the Moon. There hadn’t been any scientist-astronauts yet, and he figured NASA would choose test pilots rather than geologists for the Moon mission. Over the summer, he was at a Space Science Board meeting when two guys came and confirmed his grim prediction.
“There were a couple of guys that came up from Iowa City and they told us how it was going to be two astronauts,” Gene said. “It was perfectly plain that they didn’t want scientists sticking their damn noses in any way into the whole venture. They regarded us as a huge nuisance. It was offensive.”
In the Fall, Gene went to Washington to advocate for scientist-astronauts. Maybe scientists wouldn’t be in the first Apollo missions, but he was determined to get some scientist (preferably himself) to the Moon. But his chances of a trip to space soon collapsed.
Gene started to feel unwell. His blood pressure was low and he was anemic. “I started losing weight. I was scrawny … By Spring it was getting really serious. I would go home and just collapse on the couch. I just didn’t have enough energy to do anything. I’d just get up the next morning; physically it was a really difficult period,” he said.
He found out there was no way he could be an astronaut, and so there was no way he could go to the Moon
Over the next several months, Gene’s condition only got worse. But the doctors couldn’t diagnose it. “I started losing control of my speech. I couldn’t fully bend my knees; my joints were getting stiff. I would get uncontrollable spasms of hiccups,” he said.
As the symptoms piled up, the doctors realized it was his adrenal gland. He had Addison’s disease. “If I hadn’t found out what it was I had a year left to live,” he said. But while they caught it in time to save his life, he now knew there was no way he could ever pass the physical to be an astronaut. Out of all the sickness he’d gone through, Gene said, “that was the cruelest blow.”
Gene had a new mission: make geology a priority for the Apollo missions
If Gene couldn’t be the geologist to go to the Moon, then he had a new mission: make sure the astronauts going actually know a thing or two about geology. He wanted them to be able to properly observe and collect samples of the lunar surface. But the problem, he realized, was that it’s impossible to teach field geology because you have to learn it by actually doing it.
Gene had experience teaching field geology to students at Caltech, where he took them on weekend field trips to make sure they actually learned how to do the work. So Gene pushed to make geology a priority for the Apollo missions. “This was what going to the Moon in my book was all about,” he said. “Why do you send a man up there? What’s he going to do — discover what’s there.”
He also worked on other space missions, like Ranger and Surveyor
In the meantime, Gene was still involved in the current space missions. He worked on the Ranger 7, 8, and 9 missions, which were the first spacecrafts to get a close look at the Moon’s surface in 1964. They took pictures that were far better than anything a telescope could get.
Gene was also the Principal Investigator for the television camera on Surveyor, which was the first U.S. spacecraft to actually safely land on the Moon. The Surveyor missions took pictures of the lunar surface, so scientists could determine if the ground was safe for a manned spacecraft to land. Plus, the Surveyors did some chemical analysis of the Moon’s surface.
Gene trained the Apollo astronauts on how to do field geology
Around this time, NASA was preparing the Apollo missions that would send the first people to the Moon. Shoemaker helped train the astronauts in Meteor Crater, Arizona. They set up a mock landing site to let the astronauts practice making geological field observations because Gene knew the only way to learn was to practice.
The Apollo Program got six different missions to the Moon. Gene even helped select scientist-astronauts for NASA, once they decided to actually get scientists up in space. While Gene did help get scientists to the Moon, he was now watching as they blasted off instead of him.
Gene picked a geologist to go to the Moon with Apollo 17
In a bittersweet twist of fate, Shoemaker selected the geologist Harrison Schmitt to go on Apollo 17. Schmitt had worked for the USGS and with Gene on lunar mapping and astronaut training in Arizona. So a geologist was going to the Moon, but it wasn’t Gene.
“It’s kind of an ironic turn of events,” Gene said, “because way back in 1948 I had imagined that there would be some point in time in which the National Academy of Sciences would be asked to review the qualifications of scientists who wanted to go to the Moon, and my goal then had been to be standing at the head of the line as an applicant. I never pictured that I would end up chairing the committee to review the applicants.”
The Apollo missions were a huge disappointment to Gene
Unfortunately, Apollo never achieved what Gene thought it could. NASA planned every step, not allowing for new observations to guide the astronauts’ steps. To be a real field mission, Gene said, the astronauts needed to be able to go make observations wherever they saw something interesting. To him, the missions were a lost opportunity.
“My dream for Apollo,” Shoemaker explained, “was to try to create the opportunity to show what a well-trained human being could do on the spot. This is not a kind of science that most scientists understand, because they don’t do it. And in the six moon landings, we never demonstrated that important discoveries could be made from field observations.”
Gene trained astronauts for the first three Apollo missions, but at some point, he had to move on. “The Moon’s been waiting for me — I’m not going to make it,” he said. Gene turned his gaze from the Moon to something else in the sky: comets.
After discovering how the meteors on Earth and the Moon were created, Gene became concerned about when Earth would be hit again. He worked on a program to track comets (which are made of ice and dust) and asteroids (which are made of rock) as they flew through the sky. He, his wife Carolyn, and another scientist discovered the comet that struck Jupiter in 1994.
Not going to the Moon was Gene’s biggest disappointment
The comet that fell into Jupiter was named the Shoemaker-Levy 9 Comet and it was the first time people observed a planetary collision. Jupiter’s gravity ripped apart the comet, which fell into the planet and created quite a fireworks show. Before long, Gene and Carolyn held the world record for the most comets discovered, at 32 comets.
”Not going to the Moon and banging on it with my own hammer has been the biggest disappointment in life,” Gene told Sky and Telescope last year. ”But then, I probably wouldn’t have gone to Palomar Observatory to take some 25,000 films of the night sky with Carolyn, and we wouldn’t have had the thrills of finding those funny things that go bump in the night.”
At age 69, Gene Shoemaker’s dreams of exploring the lunar surface came to an abrupt end. It was 1997 and he was investigating meteorite craters in Australia with his wife. It wasn’t his first time there, as he had earlier remarked that he and his wife “have a whee of a time just poking around those old holes in the ground.”
But a head-on collision tragically ended Gene’s ventures on Earth. He died in the car crash and Carolyn was hospitalized. But unbeknownst to Gene, his death was not the end of his journey to the Moon. Even though he had passed away, one person still had hope that he could get there.
Gene’s friend realized this was the last chance to get him to the Moon
Gene’s death was the end of a long and successful scientific career, but despite its length and his many contributions to science, there were probably future insights lost with Gene. Just a month earlier, he’d shaken planetary science again, with the realization that the asteroid Mathilde was made of sand.
His former student, colleague, and friend Carolyn Porco was there when he solved the sandy asteroid problem and she was amazed at his brilliance. So when she learned he would be cremated, she immediately thought about how sincerely he had wanted to go to the moon. She thought, “Let’s send Gene to the moon. This is his last chance.”
Carolyn Porco quickly set forth a plan to get Gene to the moon. She emailed everyone she could think of that might be able to help, and even though it was Saturday, she got all her questions answered within a day or two. She needed to know when the next lunar mission would be launched and whether or not there was room for a small capsule on it.
Lunar Prospector, an unmanned spacecraft, was set to launch the next year to map the Moon’s surface. It was going to look for polar ice, measure magnetic and gravity fields, and study gasses coming out of the lunar surface. This spacecraft was Gene’s last hope at getting to the Moon.
NASA agreed with the plan and liked “the poetry of it”
Gene’s wife told Porco she would be forever grateful if she could get his ashes to the Moon. And all Porco needed to get him there was a small unoccupied space on the Lunar Prospector to put a capsule of his ashes. But it was late in the space launch planning and the Prospector was in the final testing stages already.
Luckily, Scott Hubbard, the Lunar Prospector mission manager, was open to the idea. And nine days later, NASA’s Associate Administrator for Space Science Wesley Huntress told Porco, “I like that idea, Carolyn. I like the poetry of it.” After all that Gene had done for NASA, they were now going to help him fulfill his final mission.
NASA ended up calling the company Celestis to help them. Earlier in the year, Celestis had completed their first space mission: launching the ashes of 24 people into space on the “Founder’s Flight.” Their whole business was memorial spaceflights, because who doesn’t want their ashes blasted into space?
They work by finding extra room on already planned space launches and filling them with people’s ashes, which are contained in capsules and then attached to some sort of equipment. Usually, the ashes, and the equipment they’re attached to, end up orbiting Earth. Celestis decided to help Porco and NASA get Gene’s ashes on the Lunar Prospector.
Well, there wasn’t much time to make the whole trip to the Moon happen, so Porco did a bit of scrambling and driving around. In August 1997, she drove to Phoenix (from Tucson) and got a piece of brass foil laser-etched with Eugene Shoemaker’s name, a picture of the Hale-Bopp comet (the last comet he saw with his wife), a picture of Meteor Crater, and a passage from “Romeo and Juliet.”
The next day she drove a few hours north to Flagstaff, Arizona. At Shoemaker’s house, she had a ceremony with his family and they put an ounce of his ashes in the capsule and wrapped it with the foil. Then Porco drove back to Phoenix to fly to the Ames Research Center in California. Finally, she delivered the little package to Scott Hubbard.
At long last, Gene went to the Moon
A few months later, on January 6, 1998, Lunar Prospector was launched to the Moon. For over a year, it had sampled and mapped, until it finally completed its mission. NASA purposefully crashed the Prospector on the Moon on July 31, 1999, taking Gene’s ashes with it. Finally, he had gotten to the Moon.
While 12 people have walked on the Moon, only one person has ever been buried on it: lunar geologist and planetary scientist Gene Shoemaker. After a career studying celestial collisions, Gene became one himself when he crash-landed on the lunar surface. Hopefully, his foresight will save us from any future comets or asteroids straying too close to Earth, but it’s a shame he’ll never see us get to Mars.
Quotes were used with permission from the American Institute of Physics:
Interview of Eugene Shoemaker by Ron Doel on 1986 January 30, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics,
College Park, MD USA, www.aip.org/history- | <urn:uuid:156b0639-d1da-4064-ac10-57be9e23881c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.science101.com/bittersweet-geologist-finally-reached-the-moon-eugene-shoemaker/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00225.warc.gz | en | 0.983774 | 4,761 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.13291557133197784,
0.3920210599899292,
0.42923349142074585,
-0.08949586749076843,
-0.2876462936401367,
-0.02522798627614975,
-0.10907633602619171,
0.2401949167251587,
-0.7021485567092896,
-0.12807685136795044,
-0.05352386087179184,
-0.09093602001667023,
0.3045652508735657,
0.47806972265... | 8 | The bittersweet story of how a geologist finally reached the Moon
In old cabinet drawers and aluminum boxes, Eugene Shoemaker kept his growing collection of minerals. His father took him traveling around Wyoming, where he picked up all kinds of rocks to bring back home. In 5th grade, Gene enrolled at the Buffalo Museum of Science in evening high school level science classes. There was no doubt that he was a science kid.
Shoemaker was born in Los Angeles in 1928 and moved back and forth between there and Buffalo a few times. But at a very early age, he was absolutely enamored with rocks. By nine he was a collector and regularly read geology textbooks. However, despite his enthusiasm, he had no idea how great a scientist he would grow up to be.
After college, he wanted to be a field geologist
Shoemaker finished high school in three years and went right to college at the California Institute of Technology, in 1944. Unfortunately, the geology department was basically shut down for World War II, because many of the geologists were working for the Defense Minerals Program, looking for critical mineral deposits in the U.S.
Gene ended up taking all his geology classes in his last year when the professors came back. After getting his Bachelor’s and Master’s at Caltech, he took a job with the United States Geological Survey. At this point, Gene knew he wanted to be a field geologist, but he didn’t know yet how far that would take him.
Gene was determined to get to the Moon
The nuclear events of World War II left Shoemaker thinking hard about the near future of scientific innovation. He was optimistic. He believed great scientific advancements would happen in his lifetime, including in-person moon exploration. And, in his mind, who better to explore the Moon than a geologist?
“I made up my mind right then and there, I’d be standing at the head of the line, use whatever opportunities came along to be as near as I could to being the most qualified geologist to go to the Moon,” Gene said in an interview for the American Institute of Physics.
For now, though, there wasn’t much Gene could do to get to the Moon. So he focused on his job with the U.S. Geological Survey and did graduate studies at Princeton, while reading lunar research papers on the side. He didn’t tell many people of his secret ambition, but instead worked toward becoming the most qualified field geologist for any future lunar missions.
Gene was very interested in geologic mapping, which is the process of mapping the different kinds of rocks and sediments in an area. It took him to the Hopi Buttes volcanic field in Arizona. The field was full of craters that, to Gene, looked rather like the Moon’s craters. This lead him toward one of his biggest contributions to scientific understanding.
Scientists thought craters were made from volcanic eruptions but Gene had a different idea
At the time, scientists believed craters on Earth and on the Moon were made from explosive volcanic eruptions, but Shoemaker thought otherwise. He got a clue toward the real crater-maker while exploring old volcano vents as part of his job with the Geological Survey.
He was actually looking for uranium but was more interested in the structures left behind by the volcanoes. Following this research, he was sent to old nuclear test sites because the Atomic Energy Commission thought doing underground nuclear explosions would make more plutonium. But to ensure it wouldn’t create an eruption on a volcanic scale, they sent Gene on a classified mission.
Gene’s work took him to Meteor Crater, which led him to a scientific breakthrough
Shoemaker compared the nuclear test sites to the volcanic field and realized there’s a difference between holes made from erupting out of the inside of the Earth versus hitting into the surface from the outside. With this information, he was headed toward the scientific discoveries that distinguished his career.
Not long after, the need for plutonium passed, so they never carried out the explosions. But this research led Gene to something new: Meteor Crater. The crater is almost a mile across and about 550 feet deep, situated in the middle of Arizona. It’s been there as long as anyone can remember. Gene believed it was made by a celestial rock hitting the Earth and that the craters on the Moon were made the same way.
Gene tried to start a lunar geology project before we even sent anything to space
Gene felt the scientific tide shifting and believed that space exploration was coming soon. So, before any satellites were even shot into space, he went to the head of the Geological Survey to plant some seeds for a future moon project. He wanted to use telescopes to start mapping the Moon’s geology.
After several years of having a secret ambition to get to the Moon, Gene finally revealed his interests and started to push them forward. He knew that someone would step on the Moon in his lifetime, and hoped it would be him, but he never imagined how soon it would happen.
The Soviets launched the first satellite into space, pushing Gene to act fast
In 1957, the Soviet Union shot the proverbial starting pistol for the space race, by launching Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite, into space. When Gene heard this, he thought, “Oh no! I’m not ready yet! It’s too soon.” He had started pursuing his Moon ambitions, but hadn’t yet finished the volcanic work he was doing.
NASA wasn’t even founded until the next year, but an informal group started around the question of how could we possibly get to the Moon. They brainstormed the math and science it would take to get someone on its rocky surface. And Gene, of course, was part of that group.
Soon enough, Gene and a few other members of the Geological Survey had a meeting for anyone interested in getting into lunar research. Together, they came up with a research program proposal and sent it to the new chief geologist, hoping to work on it over at the newly formed NASA.
Well, the chief geologist wasn’t particularly interested in their lunar proposal and had a lot of other work distracting him. “So at this point, I was starting to look around, because I didn’t know whether the Geological Survey was going to go to the Moon but I was determined that Gene Shoemaker was,” Gene said.
Gene was the first to map the geology of the Moon
Gene took matters into his own hands and, using telescopic photographs and a topographic map of the Moon, he drew up the first geological maps of the Moon. He was forcing his way to become a foremost lunar geologist and was even invited to give a talk about it in Washington D.C.
At the event, Gene got drunk at dinner and gave “one of the best talks, most important talks I ever gave in my life.” He talked about the Copernicus crater on the Moon and, fortunately, the very influential John O’Keafe was in the audience. O’Keafe helped Gene finally get the lunar mapping project up and running.
Meteor Crater gave Gene the evidence he needed for his impact theory
So Gene and a few other geologists worked on lunar mapping, but most geologists were not taking their project very seriously. They didn’t believe NASA would send a spacecraft to the Moon. To them, Gene just had his head in the stars and he’d never get his feet on the Moon.
Around the same time, Gene finally finished his Ph.D. thesis on Meteor Crater. And not long after, he and a small team discovered the first natural occurrence of a mineral called coesite, at Meteor Crater. Finally, here was the evidence to support Gene’s theory that a meteorite impact caused the crater formation.
Coesite is a form of quartz that is made from very high pressure and high temperatures, which are only high enough on the Earth’s crust when a meteorite impacts the ground. So here was the evidence to counteract the volcanic crater-creation theory. Around 1960, Gene went to Germany and found coesite at other craters there, including the 15-mile-across Ries crater.
“That was a big breakthrough, because this was the first demonstration that indeed there are very large structures on the Earth produced by impact, structures very much larger than Meteor Crater, and of course this provided a very important link in identifying craters on the Moon as of impact origin,” Gene said.
With his geological maps of the Moon, Gene was trying to understand its history. He thought its craters were created over a large span of time, by celestial bombardment. He and his team of lunar geologists did experiments in Meteor Crater to study the impact theory and at night they conducted telescope observations at the Lowell Observatory, 40 miles away in Flagstaff, Arizona.
Around this time, 1961 to 1963, the first American astronauts (the Mercury Seven) were going into space. They were all military test pilots and most got to orbit Earth. No one with a science background had been selected to go to space, yet.
Gene’s hopes of being the first to go to the Moon were dashed
But in 1962, Gene realized he wouldn’t be among the first men on the Moon. There hadn’t been any scientist-astronauts yet, and he figured NASA would choose test pilots rather than geologists for the Moon mission. Over the summer, he was at a Space Science Board meeting when two guys came and confirmed his grim prediction.
“There were a couple of guys that came up from Iowa City and they told us how it was going to be two astronauts,” Gene said. “It was perfectly plain that they didn’t want scientists sticking their damn noses in any way into the whole venture. They regarded us as a huge nuisance. It was offensive.”
In the Fall, Gene went to Washington to advocate for scientist-astronauts. Maybe scientists wouldn’t be in the first Apollo missions, but he was determined to get some scientist (preferably himself) to the Moon. But his chances of a trip to space soon collapsed.
Gene started to feel unwell. His blood pressure was low and he was anemic. “I started losing weight. I was scrawny … By Spring it was getting really serious. I would go home and just collapse on the couch. I just didn’t have enough energy to do anything. I’d just get up the next morning; physically it was a really difficult period,” he said.
He found out there was no way he could be an astronaut, and so there was no way he could go to the Moon
Over the next several months, Gene’s condition only got worse. But the doctors couldn’t diagnose it. “I started losing control of my speech. I couldn’t fully bend my knees; my joints were getting stiff. I would get uncontrollable spasms of hiccups,” he said.
As the symptoms piled up, the doctors realized it was his adrenal gland. He had Addison’s disease. “If I hadn’t found out what it was I had a year left to live,” he said. But while they caught it in time to save his life, he now knew there was no way he could ever pass the physical to be an astronaut. Out of all the sickness he’d gone through, Gene said, “that was the cruelest blow.”
Gene had a new mission: make geology a priority for the Apollo missions
If Gene couldn’t be the geologist to go to the Moon, then he had a new mission: make sure the astronauts going actually know a thing or two about geology. He wanted them to be able to properly observe and collect samples of the lunar surface. But the problem, he realized, was that it’s impossible to teach field geology because you have to learn it by actually doing it.
Gene had experience teaching field geology to students at Caltech, where he took them on weekend field trips to make sure they actually learned how to do the work. So Gene pushed to make geology a priority for the Apollo missions. “This was what going to the Moon in my book was all about,” he said. “Why do you send a man up there? What’s he going to do — discover what’s there.”
He also worked on other space missions, like Ranger and Surveyor
In the meantime, Gene was still involved in the current space missions. He worked on the Ranger 7, 8, and 9 missions, which were the first spacecrafts to get a close look at the Moon’s surface in 1964. They took pictures that were far better than anything a telescope could get.
Gene was also the Principal Investigator for the television camera on Surveyor, which was the first U.S. spacecraft to actually safely land on the Moon. The Surveyor missions took pictures of the lunar surface, so scientists could determine if the ground was safe for a manned spacecraft to land. Plus, the Surveyors did some chemical analysis of the Moon’s surface.
Gene trained the Apollo astronauts on how to do field geology
Around this time, NASA was preparing the Apollo missions that would send the first people to the Moon. Shoemaker helped train the astronauts in Meteor Crater, Arizona. They set up a mock landing site to let the astronauts practice making geological field observations because Gene knew the only way to learn was to practice.
The Apollo Program got six different missions to the Moon. Gene even helped select scientist-astronauts for NASA, once they decided to actually get scientists up in space. While Gene did help get scientists to the Moon, he was now watching as they blasted off instead of him.
Gene picked a geologist to go to the Moon with Apollo 17
In a bittersweet twist of fate, Shoemaker selected the geologist Harrison Schmitt to go on Apollo 17. Schmitt had worked for the USGS and with Gene on lunar mapping and astronaut training in Arizona. So a geologist was going to the Moon, but it wasn’t Gene.
“It’s kind of an ironic turn of events,” Gene said, “because way back in 1948 I had imagined that there would be some point in time in which the National Academy of Sciences would be asked to review the qualifications of scientists who wanted to go to the Moon, and my goal then had been to be standing at the head of the line as an applicant. I never pictured that I would end up chairing the committee to review the applicants.”
The Apollo missions were a huge disappointment to Gene
Unfortunately, Apollo never achieved what Gene thought it could. NASA planned every step, not allowing for new observations to guide the astronauts’ steps. To be a real field mission, Gene said, the astronauts needed to be able to go make observations wherever they saw something interesting. To him, the missions were a lost opportunity.
“My dream for Apollo,” Shoemaker explained, “was to try to create the opportunity to show what a well-trained human being could do on the spot. This is not a kind of science that most scientists understand, because they don’t do it. And in the six moon landings, we never demonstrated that important discoveries could be made from field observations.”
Gene trained astronauts for the first three Apollo missions, but at some point, he had to move on. “The Moon’s been waiting for me — I’m not going to make it,” he said. Gene turned his gaze from the Moon to something else in the sky: comets.
After discovering how the meteors on Earth and the Moon were created, Gene became concerned about when Earth would be hit again. He worked on a program to track comets (which are made of ice and dust) and asteroids (which are made of rock) as they flew through the sky. He, his wife Carolyn, and another scientist discovered the comet that struck Jupiter in 1994.
Not going to the Moon was Gene’s biggest disappointment
The comet that fell into Jupiter was named the Shoemaker-Levy 9 Comet and it was the first time people observed a planetary collision. Jupiter’s gravity ripped apart the comet, which fell into the planet and created quite a fireworks show. Before long, Gene and Carolyn held the world record for the most comets discovered, at 32 comets.
”Not going to the Moon and banging on it with my own hammer has been the biggest disappointment in life,” Gene told Sky and Telescope last year. ”But then, I probably wouldn’t have gone to Palomar Observatory to take some 25,000 films of the night sky with Carolyn, and we wouldn’t have had the thrills of finding those funny things that go bump in the night.”
At age 69, Gene Shoemaker’s dreams of exploring the lunar surface came to an abrupt end. It was 1997 and he was investigating meteorite craters in Australia with his wife. It wasn’t his first time there, as he had earlier remarked that he and his wife “have a whee of a time just poking around those old holes in the ground.”
But a head-on collision tragically ended Gene’s ventures on Earth. He died in the car crash and Carolyn was hospitalized. But unbeknownst to Gene, his death was not the end of his journey to the Moon. Even though he had passed away, one person still had hope that he could get there.
Gene’s friend realized this was the last chance to get him to the Moon
Gene’s death was the end of a long and successful scientific career, but despite its length and his many contributions to science, there were probably future insights lost with Gene. Just a month earlier, he’d shaken planetary science again, with the realization that the asteroid Mathilde was made of sand.
His former student, colleague, and friend Carolyn Porco was there when he solved the sandy asteroid problem and she was amazed at his brilliance. So when she learned he would be cremated, she immediately thought about how sincerely he had wanted to go to the moon. She thought, “Let’s send Gene to the moon. This is his last chance.”
Carolyn Porco quickly set forth a plan to get Gene to the moon. She emailed everyone she could think of that might be able to help, and even though it was Saturday, she got all her questions answered within a day or two. She needed to know when the next lunar mission would be launched and whether or not there was room for a small capsule on it.
Lunar Prospector, an unmanned spacecraft, was set to launch the next year to map the Moon’s surface. It was going to look for polar ice, measure magnetic and gravity fields, and study gasses coming out of the lunar surface. This spacecraft was Gene’s last hope at getting to the Moon.
NASA agreed with the plan and liked “the poetry of it”
Gene’s wife told Porco she would be forever grateful if she could get his ashes to the Moon. And all Porco needed to get him there was a small unoccupied space on the Lunar Prospector to put a capsule of his ashes. But it was late in the space launch planning and the Prospector was in the final testing stages already.
Luckily, Scott Hubbard, the Lunar Prospector mission manager, was open to the idea. And nine days later, NASA’s Associate Administrator for Space Science Wesley Huntress told Porco, “I like that idea, Carolyn. I like the poetry of it.” After all that Gene had done for NASA, they were now going to help him fulfill his final mission.
NASA ended up calling the company Celestis to help them. Earlier in the year, Celestis had completed their first space mission: launching the ashes of 24 people into space on the “Founder’s Flight.” Their whole business was memorial spaceflights, because who doesn’t want their ashes blasted into space?
They work by finding extra room on already planned space launches and filling them with people’s ashes, which are contained in capsules and then attached to some sort of equipment. Usually, the ashes, and the equipment they’re attached to, end up orbiting Earth. Celestis decided to help Porco and NASA get Gene’s ashes on the Lunar Prospector.
Well, there wasn’t much time to make the whole trip to the Moon happen, so Porco did a bit of scrambling and driving around. In August 1997, she drove to Phoenix (from Tucson) and got a piece of brass foil laser-etched with Eugene Shoemaker’s name, a picture of the Hale-Bopp comet (the last comet he saw with his wife), a picture of Meteor Crater, and a passage from “Romeo and Juliet.”
The next day she drove a few hours north to Flagstaff, Arizona. At Shoemaker’s house, she had a ceremony with his family and they put an ounce of his ashes in the capsule and wrapped it with the foil. Then Porco drove back to Phoenix to fly to the Ames Research Center in California. Finally, she delivered the little package to Scott Hubbard.
At long last, Gene went to the Moon
A few months later, on January 6, 1998, Lunar Prospector was launched to the Moon. For over a year, it had sampled and mapped, until it finally completed its mission. NASA purposefully crashed the Prospector on the Moon on July 31, 1999, taking Gene’s ashes with it. Finally, he had gotten to the Moon.
While 12 people have walked on the Moon, only one person has ever been buried on it: lunar geologist and planetary scientist Gene Shoemaker. After a career studying celestial collisions, Gene became one himself when he crash-landed on the lunar surface. Hopefully, his foresight will save us from any future comets or asteroids straying too close to Earth, but it’s a shame he’ll never see us get to Mars.
Quotes were used with permission from the American Institute of Physics:
Interview of Eugene Shoemaker by Ron Doel on 1986 January 30, Niels Bohr Library & Archives, American Institute of Physics,
College Park, MD USA, www.aip.org/history- | 4,554 | ENGLISH | 1 |
When were you born?
Newton's Birth Date and The Anni Mirabiles It's usually said that Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day, but there is some ambiguity in this because England was still using the "old" Julian calendar at the time of Newton's birth, whereas the rest of Europe had adopted the "modern" Gregorian calendar later adopted by England and still in use today.
According to the modern calendar, Newton was born on 4 Januarybut according to the calendar in force at the time and place of his birth, he was born on 25 December It's been speculated that this fact held some significance for the mystical side of Newton's imagination, and helps to explain his fascination for biblical interpretation, since he can hardly have failed to notice that he was born on Christmas Day with no worldly father - his natural father Robert, a farmer, having died some 3 months before Isaac's birth.
An even trickier question is whether Newton was born in the same year Galileo died as is commonly said. But when placed on the same calendar the two events fall in different years. To make things even more confusing, many English of that time still considered March 25 to be the first day of the calendar year, so by the old English reading of the Italian calendar, Galileo died in Incidentally, since Einstein was known to have revered Maxwell, could it have escaped his notice that he was born in the same year Maxwell died?
Originally the Romans considered the year to begin on March 1, which is the reason February the "last" month of the year is truncated at 28 days, and is used to sneak in an extra day every four years. This also explains why the prefixes of our month names are all "off" by two, i.
The Romans officially recognized January 1 as the first day of the year in BC, but it didn't catch on everywhere right away. By the way, it's interesting to note that the "Julian period" not to be confused with the Julian Calendar well known to historians and astronomers, was named not after Julius Caesar, but after the father of Joseph Scaliger, who in devised the scheme by which each day is consecutively numbered beginning with January 1, BC, which Joseph thought would cover everything of interest.
Another ambiguous date associated with Newton is his famous "annus mirabilis", or year of miracles, around This was the period during which Isaac, having been sent home from college because of the Plague epidemic, occupied his time by inventing calculus, discovering the chromatic composition of light, and conceiving of the inverse-square law of universal gravitation Of course, it must be remembered that in later life Newton was embroiled with priority disputes, most notably with Robert Hooke over optics and the inverse-square law of gravity, and with Leibniz over the Calculus.
Thus, it was always in Newton's self-interest to place his discoveries as early as possible. The documentary evidence suggests that, at least with regard to mechanics and gravitation, his ideas hadn't actually reached a coherent state until much later, aroundwhen he was actually composing the Principia.
Nevertheless, it's clear that Newton devoted himself intensively to the study of mathematics and physics during the intermission from Cambridge, but it's often been pointed out that his burst of activity should really be called "anni mirabiles", since it covered the time from toand much of that time he was actually at Cambridge.
The school closed in the summer of '65, and Newton returned in March of '66 when the school was re-opened after the plague had gone dormant over the winter. The plague re-appeared so Cambridge was closed again in June of ' This time it remained closed until April of '67, when Newton again returned to Trinity college.
Notwithstanding the caveat mentioned above about Newton's vested interest in recalling early dates for his discoveries, it's still interesting to read his famous recollection of his activities during these years.
All this was in the two plague years of and Although he says his results "answer pretty nearly", it seems that at the time he was dissatisfied with the disagreement between his rough calculation and his observations.
His surviving notes from the late 's show that he was using an estimate of 60 miles per degree of latitude. He had gotten this from Galileo's writings, and Galileo had used this figure because that's what sailors of that time commonly used.
Now, similar to the conflict between the calendars of Italy and England, they also used different definitions of a "mile". The Italian mile was feet, whereas the English mile was feet.
Newton was aware of this difference, so he tried his calculation both ways, but it still gave a result for the Moon's orbit that implied an object at the Earth' surface should fall only According to William Whiston, "this made Sir Isaac suspect that this Power was partly gravity and partly that of Cartesius's Vortices", so he "threw aside the Paper of his Calculation and went on to other studies".
Similarly, Henry Pemberton heard Newton say that "his computation did not answer his expectations, so he concluded that some other cause must at least join with the action of the power of gravity on the moon".
Not long afterwards, inthe French astronomer Jean Picard determined with very accurate measurements that one degree of latitude equals He supposedly rushed home and excitedly repeated his earlier computation, this time finding it "perfectly agreeable to the Theory".
However, in the introductory guide to his modern English translation of the Principia, I. Cohen contends that these calculations cannot be seen as the origin of the theory of universal gravitation. His argument is that The theory of gravitation is based on the central concept of a universal force.
In the s, Newton was considering something quite different, namely, a Cartesian endeavor, or "conatus," rather than a force, and certainly not a universal force. This endeavor was centrifugal, or directed outward, tending to produce an outward displacement, one having a direction away from the central body.
Universal gravity is centripetal, directed inward, tending to produce an inward displacement. I find this reasoning incomprehensible.Emergency Medical Responder Training. STUDY. PLAY. Allergies Medications Past Pertinent Medical History Last Oral Intake The part of the patient care report that includes the patient's name, address, date of birth and sex is the: Patient Data Section.
Narrative writing should contain what? To know Horoscope, one should have an accurate date of birth, time of birth and place of birth details. Date of birth helps to find planetary positions for the day. Time of birth and place of birth helps to find Ascendant and other house positions.
In this study, Wjst and colleagues tried to further understand the effects of latitude and birth date on the prevalence of allergy defined by markers such as allergic rhinitis, sensitization to grass or dust, and total IgE levels.
Month of birth as a latitude-dependent risk factor for multiple sclerosis in Norway Date of birth, sex and place of birth of patients with MS and their unaffected siblings born within 5 years of the patients’ birth were retrieved from the Norwegian Population Registry (Statistics Norway).
Month of birth as a latitude-dependent risk. Some studies found birth month influence on allergy risk wanes with age. In a study, birch pollen allergy risk was higher in those born between February and April from among Finnish children (3).
Risk differences flat-lined by the age of 20 years. Latitude:: South Enter longitude and latitudes of your birth place or of a place nearest to your birth place. Click Here to know your birth place's longitude, latitude and time zone. | <urn:uuid:4a61295c-f7f5-4835-a407-e4adb56ef4f2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://haniqecifejuwynyc.tranceformingnlp.com/a-study-relating-allergies-with-a-persons-birth-date-or-the-place-of-birth-in-latitude-birth-date-an-13413lv.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694908.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127051112-20200127081112-00101.warc.gz | en | 0.982378 | 1,585 | 3.5 | 4 | [
0.05951165407896042,
0.18108808994293213,
0.14181068539619446,
-0.30916833877563477,
-0.3088129460811615,
-0.33442139625549316,
-0.10461409389972687,
0.1178058609366417,
0.23463194072246552,
0.09323775768280029,
0.21213583648204803,
-0.25583595037460327,
0.2951088547706604,
0.1924935132265... | 1 | When were you born?
Newton's Birth Date and The Anni Mirabiles It's usually said that Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day, but there is some ambiguity in this because England was still using the "old" Julian calendar at the time of Newton's birth, whereas the rest of Europe had adopted the "modern" Gregorian calendar later adopted by England and still in use today.
According to the modern calendar, Newton was born on 4 Januarybut according to the calendar in force at the time and place of his birth, he was born on 25 December It's been speculated that this fact held some significance for the mystical side of Newton's imagination, and helps to explain his fascination for biblical interpretation, since he can hardly have failed to notice that he was born on Christmas Day with no worldly father - his natural father Robert, a farmer, having died some 3 months before Isaac's birth.
An even trickier question is whether Newton was born in the same year Galileo died as is commonly said. But when placed on the same calendar the two events fall in different years. To make things even more confusing, many English of that time still considered March 25 to be the first day of the calendar year, so by the old English reading of the Italian calendar, Galileo died in Incidentally, since Einstein was known to have revered Maxwell, could it have escaped his notice that he was born in the same year Maxwell died?
Originally the Romans considered the year to begin on March 1, which is the reason February the "last" month of the year is truncated at 28 days, and is used to sneak in an extra day every four years. This also explains why the prefixes of our month names are all "off" by two, i.
The Romans officially recognized January 1 as the first day of the year in BC, but it didn't catch on everywhere right away. By the way, it's interesting to note that the "Julian period" not to be confused with the Julian Calendar well known to historians and astronomers, was named not after Julius Caesar, but after the father of Joseph Scaliger, who in devised the scheme by which each day is consecutively numbered beginning with January 1, BC, which Joseph thought would cover everything of interest.
Another ambiguous date associated with Newton is his famous "annus mirabilis", or year of miracles, around This was the period during which Isaac, having been sent home from college because of the Plague epidemic, occupied his time by inventing calculus, discovering the chromatic composition of light, and conceiving of the inverse-square law of universal gravitation Of course, it must be remembered that in later life Newton was embroiled with priority disputes, most notably with Robert Hooke over optics and the inverse-square law of gravity, and with Leibniz over the Calculus.
Thus, it was always in Newton's self-interest to place his discoveries as early as possible. The documentary evidence suggests that, at least with regard to mechanics and gravitation, his ideas hadn't actually reached a coherent state until much later, aroundwhen he was actually composing the Principia.
Nevertheless, it's clear that Newton devoted himself intensively to the study of mathematics and physics during the intermission from Cambridge, but it's often been pointed out that his burst of activity should really be called "anni mirabiles", since it covered the time from toand much of that time he was actually at Cambridge.
The school closed in the summer of '65, and Newton returned in March of '66 when the school was re-opened after the plague had gone dormant over the winter. The plague re-appeared so Cambridge was closed again in June of ' This time it remained closed until April of '67, when Newton again returned to Trinity college.
Notwithstanding the caveat mentioned above about Newton's vested interest in recalling early dates for his discoveries, it's still interesting to read his famous recollection of his activities during these years.
All this was in the two plague years of and Although he says his results "answer pretty nearly", it seems that at the time he was dissatisfied with the disagreement between his rough calculation and his observations.
His surviving notes from the late 's show that he was using an estimate of 60 miles per degree of latitude. He had gotten this from Galileo's writings, and Galileo had used this figure because that's what sailors of that time commonly used.
Now, similar to the conflict between the calendars of Italy and England, they also used different definitions of a "mile". The Italian mile was feet, whereas the English mile was feet.
Newton was aware of this difference, so he tried his calculation both ways, but it still gave a result for the Moon's orbit that implied an object at the Earth' surface should fall only According to William Whiston, "this made Sir Isaac suspect that this Power was partly gravity and partly that of Cartesius's Vortices", so he "threw aside the Paper of his Calculation and went on to other studies".
Similarly, Henry Pemberton heard Newton say that "his computation did not answer his expectations, so he concluded that some other cause must at least join with the action of the power of gravity on the moon".
Not long afterwards, inthe French astronomer Jean Picard determined with very accurate measurements that one degree of latitude equals He supposedly rushed home and excitedly repeated his earlier computation, this time finding it "perfectly agreeable to the Theory".
However, in the introductory guide to his modern English translation of the Principia, I. Cohen contends that these calculations cannot be seen as the origin of the theory of universal gravitation. His argument is that The theory of gravitation is based on the central concept of a universal force.
In the s, Newton was considering something quite different, namely, a Cartesian endeavor, or "conatus," rather than a force, and certainly not a universal force. This endeavor was centrifugal, or directed outward, tending to produce an outward displacement, one having a direction away from the central body.
Universal gravity is centripetal, directed inward, tending to produce an inward displacement. I find this reasoning incomprehensible.Emergency Medical Responder Training. STUDY. PLAY. Allergies Medications Past Pertinent Medical History Last Oral Intake The part of the patient care report that includes the patient's name, address, date of birth and sex is the: Patient Data Section.
Narrative writing should contain what? To know Horoscope, one should have an accurate date of birth, time of birth and place of birth details. Date of birth helps to find planetary positions for the day. Time of birth and place of birth helps to find Ascendant and other house positions.
In this study, Wjst and colleagues tried to further understand the effects of latitude and birth date on the prevalence of allergy defined by markers such as allergic rhinitis, sensitization to grass or dust, and total IgE levels.
Month of birth as a latitude-dependent risk factor for multiple sclerosis in Norway Date of birth, sex and place of birth of patients with MS and their unaffected siblings born within 5 years of the patients’ birth were retrieved from the Norwegian Population Registry (Statistics Norway).
Month of birth as a latitude-dependent risk. Some studies found birth month influence on allergy risk wanes with age. In a study, birch pollen allergy risk was higher in those born between February and April from among Finnish children (3).
Risk differences flat-lined by the age of 20 years. Latitude:: South Enter longitude and latitudes of your birth place or of a place nearest to your birth place. Click Here to know your birth place's longitude, latitude and time zone. | 1,576 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Ephraim Shay, an American lumberman and amateur mechanical engineer, was born July 17, 1839. In the 1870s, Shay was settled in northern Michigan, running a store and a small logging operation, and faced with the problem of getting logs to his sawmill. Few logging operations used tramways or railways, because they were dangerous to horses. If you tried to use a steam engine, you had even more problems, because the locomotives available, with their huge drive wheels and alternating piston rod action, tore the winding rails apart.
So Shay invented his own locomotive, a strange-looking machine, like a flat-car with a boiler on top, and not centered, but off to the left, because the right side had several large pistons that went up and down. The pistons were connected to a drive shaft with flexible couplings that ran along the right side of the wheels – small wheels, which received power through a series of bevel gears (first and third images). The advantages were that all the wheels were drive wheels, and there was no rocking side-to-side motion, so there was much less stress on the track.
Shay had one built by the Lima Locomotive Works in Ohio in 1880, found that it worked just fine, patented the mechanism in 1881, and Shay locomotives started selling, slowly at first, and then by the score. By 1900, there were thousands on the job, mostly in the employ of loggers, but other uses were found, since a Shay has exceptionally good traction, and can negotiate very tight curves. In 1914, our own Kansas City Southern bought two Shays to use in its switchyard; one of these was rated for a 130 ton load, the other a whopping 160 tons.
The last Shay locomotive was built in 1945, but there are many still around on tourist railways (fourth image) and in railroad museums (fifth image). The Cass Scenic Railroad Park in West Virginia sits on the site of a former logging railway; it still has 8 of the original Shays in operation.
There is also one serving on the historic Georgetown Loop Railroad in Colorado, west of Denver; there is a video of the engine in operation on YouTube, with some nice close-ups of the outside pistons and gear train, which is what makes a Shay so distinctive (the Shay is running in reverse in the video, so you are looking at its right side, not its left. Hardly anyone films the left side of a Shay).
Shay the man became quite wealthy from his patent royalties, and he apparently did not run out of ideas, as he later built himself a hexagonal house in Harbor Springs, Michigan, fabricated entirely out of sheet metal, stamped to look like wood, brick, and mortar. It is still there, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, should you find yourself on the northern tip of the southern peninsula with some time to spare (sixth image).
Dr. William B. Ashworth, Jr., Consultant for the History of Science, Linda Hall Library and Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Missouri-Kansas City. Comments or corrections are welcome; please direct to firstname.lastname@example.org. | <urn:uuid:072f13e8-3c2b-4556-80e4-0c8ecf8f432f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.lindahall.org/ephraim-shay/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00444.warc.gz | en | 0.984486 | 665 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.1831892430782318,
0.3034569025039673,
0.5257693529129028,
0.35513144731521606,
-0.28321099281311035,
-0.009759102948009968,
-0.04209388047456741,
0.20836779475212097,
-0.5013357996940613,
-0.02361137606203556,
0.08343596756458282,
0.014745485037565231,
-0.2949293553829193,
0.09514908492... | 1 | Ephraim Shay, an American lumberman and amateur mechanical engineer, was born July 17, 1839. In the 1870s, Shay was settled in northern Michigan, running a store and a small logging operation, and faced with the problem of getting logs to his sawmill. Few logging operations used tramways or railways, because they were dangerous to horses. If you tried to use a steam engine, you had even more problems, because the locomotives available, with their huge drive wheels and alternating piston rod action, tore the winding rails apart.
So Shay invented his own locomotive, a strange-looking machine, like a flat-car with a boiler on top, and not centered, but off to the left, because the right side had several large pistons that went up and down. The pistons were connected to a drive shaft with flexible couplings that ran along the right side of the wheels – small wheels, which received power through a series of bevel gears (first and third images). The advantages were that all the wheels were drive wheels, and there was no rocking side-to-side motion, so there was much less stress on the track.
Shay had one built by the Lima Locomotive Works in Ohio in 1880, found that it worked just fine, patented the mechanism in 1881, and Shay locomotives started selling, slowly at first, and then by the score. By 1900, there were thousands on the job, mostly in the employ of loggers, but other uses were found, since a Shay has exceptionally good traction, and can negotiate very tight curves. In 1914, our own Kansas City Southern bought two Shays to use in its switchyard; one of these was rated for a 130 ton load, the other a whopping 160 tons.
The last Shay locomotive was built in 1945, but there are many still around on tourist railways (fourth image) and in railroad museums (fifth image). The Cass Scenic Railroad Park in West Virginia sits on the site of a former logging railway; it still has 8 of the original Shays in operation.
There is also one serving on the historic Georgetown Loop Railroad in Colorado, west of Denver; there is a video of the engine in operation on YouTube, with some nice close-ups of the outside pistons and gear train, which is what makes a Shay so distinctive (the Shay is running in reverse in the video, so you are looking at its right side, not its left. Hardly anyone films the left side of a Shay).
Shay the man became quite wealthy from his patent royalties, and he apparently did not run out of ideas, as he later built himself a hexagonal house in Harbor Springs, Michigan, fabricated entirely out of sheet metal, stamped to look like wood, brick, and mortar. It is still there, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, should you find yourself on the northern tip of the southern peninsula with some time to spare (sixth image).
Dr. William B. Ashworth, Jr., Consultant for the History of Science, Linda Hall Library and Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Missouri-Kansas City. Comments or corrections are welcome; please direct to firstname.lastname@example.org. | 685 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Thomas Stanley, 1st earl of Derby
Thomas Stanley, 1st earl of Derby, also called (1459–85) 2nd Baron Stanley, (born c. 1435—died July 29, 1504, Lathom, Lancashire, England), a prominent figure in the later stage of England’s Wars of the Roses.
Great-grandson of Sir John Stanley (died c. 1414), who created the fortunes of the Stanley family, Thomas Stanley began his career as a squire to King Henry VI in 1454. At the Battle of Blore Heath in August 1459, Stanley, though close at hand with a large force, did not join the royal army, while his brother William fought openly for York. In 1461 Stanley was made chief justice of Cheshire by Edward IV, but 10 years later he sided with his brother-in-law Warwick in the Lancastrian restoration. Nevertheless, after Warwick’s fall, Edward IV made Stanley steward of his household. About 1482 he married Margaret Beaufort (as his second wife), mother of the exiled Henry Tudor (the future Henry VII).
Stanley was one of the executors of the will of Edward IV and was at first loyal to the young king Edward V. However, he acquiesced in Richard III’s accession and retained his office as steward, avoiding entanglement in the rebellion (1483) on behalf of Henry Tudor in which his wife was deeply involved. He was made constable of England and was granted possession of his wife’s estates with a charge to keep her safe in some secret place at home. Richard III could not well afford to quarrel with so powerful a noble, but he became suspicious when, early in 1485, Stanley asked leave to retire to his estates in Lancashire, and in the summer Richard asked Stanley to send his son Lord Strange to court as a hostage. After Henry Tudor had landed, Stanley made excuses for not joining the King. On the morning of Bosworth (August 22), when Richard summoned Stanley to join him, he received an evasive reply and thereupon ordered Lord Strange to be executed, although his order was neglected and Strange escaped. After the Battle of Bosworth Field, Stanley, who had taken no part in the fighting, placed the crown on Henry’s head. Henry VII confirmed him in all his offices and created him earl of Derby. Because his son George had died in 1503, Thomas was succeeded by his grandson Thomas as the 2nd earl of Derby.
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:
United Kingdom: Henry VII (1485–1509)…of his greatest need, that Thomas Stanley (2nd Baron Stanley) and his brother Sir William stood aside during most of the battle in order to be on the winning team, and that Louis XI of France supplied the Lancastrian forces with 1,000 mercenary troops.…
Wars of the Roses
Wars of the Roses, (1455–85), in English history, the series of dynastic civil wars whose violence and civil strife preceded the strong government of the Tudors. Fought between the houses of Lancaster and York for the English throne, the wars were named many years afterward from the supposed badges of…
Henry VI, king of England from 1422 to 1461 and from 1470 to 1471, a pious and studious recluse whose incapacity for government was one of the causes of the Wars of the Roses.… | <urn:uuid:60e6e3c5-7e1f-4697-bf79-c0859255c78c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Stanley-1st-earl-of-Derby | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607314.32/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122161553-20200122190553-00554.warc.gz | en | 0.98272 | 764 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.35160398483276367,
0.12040545791387558,
0.024181293323636055,
-0.09018594026565552,
-0.16606038808822632,
-0.1768530160188675,
0.40285754203796387,
-0.12754808366298676,
0.10484138131141663,
-0.27110791206359863,
-0.13621070981025696,
-0.3382377028465271,
0.15491992235183716,
-0.1315671... | 1 | Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Thomas Stanley, 1st earl of Derby
Thomas Stanley, 1st earl of Derby, also called (1459–85) 2nd Baron Stanley, (born c. 1435—died July 29, 1504, Lathom, Lancashire, England), a prominent figure in the later stage of England’s Wars of the Roses.
Great-grandson of Sir John Stanley (died c. 1414), who created the fortunes of the Stanley family, Thomas Stanley began his career as a squire to King Henry VI in 1454. At the Battle of Blore Heath in August 1459, Stanley, though close at hand with a large force, did not join the royal army, while his brother William fought openly for York. In 1461 Stanley was made chief justice of Cheshire by Edward IV, but 10 years later he sided with his brother-in-law Warwick in the Lancastrian restoration. Nevertheless, after Warwick’s fall, Edward IV made Stanley steward of his household. About 1482 he married Margaret Beaufort (as his second wife), mother of the exiled Henry Tudor (the future Henry VII).
Stanley was one of the executors of the will of Edward IV and was at first loyal to the young king Edward V. However, he acquiesced in Richard III’s accession and retained his office as steward, avoiding entanglement in the rebellion (1483) on behalf of Henry Tudor in which his wife was deeply involved. He was made constable of England and was granted possession of his wife’s estates with a charge to keep her safe in some secret place at home. Richard III could not well afford to quarrel with so powerful a noble, but he became suspicious when, early in 1485, Stanley asked leave to retire to his estates in Lancashire, and in the summer Richard asked Stanley to send his son Lord Strange to court as a hostage. After Henry Tudor had landed, Stanley made excuses for not joining the King. On the morning of Bosworth (August 22), when Richard summoned Stanley to join him, he received an evasive reply and thereupon ordered Lord Strange to be executed, although his order was neglected and Strange escaped. After the Battle of Bosworth Field, Stanley, who had taken no part in the fighting, placed the crown on Henry’s head. Henry VII confirmed him in all his offices and created him earl of Derby. Because his son George had died in 1503, Thomas was succeeded by his grandson Thomas as the 2nd earl of Derby.
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:
United Kingdom: Henry VII (1485–1509)…of his greatest need, that Thomas Stanley (2nd Baron Stanley) and his brother Sir William stood aside during most of the battle in order to be on the winning team, and that Louis XI of France supplied the Lancastrian forces with 1,000 mercenary troops.…
Wars of the Roses
Wars of the Roses, (1455–85), in English history, the series of dynastic civil wars whose violence and civil strife preceded the strong government of the Tudors. Fought between the houses of Lancaster and York for the English throne, the wars were named many years afterward from the supposed badges of…
Henry VI, king of England from 1422 to 1461 and from 1470 to 1471, a pious and studious recluse whose incapacity for government was one of the causes of the Wars of the Roses.… | 805 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As you will know, North Carolina was once a British Colony. As a result, the first Western-style laws we had were based on British law. It consisted of two components: statutory law and common law. Although we can trace statutes back to the dates when they were passed by the British Parliament, common law is much older. Common law consists of all the things we know to be right and wrong.
For example, as every criminal defense attorney and member of the public knows, theft is wrong. Common law wasn’t written up or codified as law, but the ways in which cases based on common law were handled was determined by legal precedent – the way in which courts handled similar matters in the past. To this day, legal precedents influence what we can expect when laws are enforced.
States Also Made Their Own Laws, Much as They do Today
During the British Colonial era, states also passed their own laws, and after independence, states maintained the laws that had previously governed them. At times, the punishments for breaking the law were extremely brutal, and reformers began to push for change. In North Carolina, criminal defense attorneys would have had their work cut out just ensuring that certain clients weren’t put to death.
Two hundred years ago, there were 28 felonies that were punishable by death. As you would expect, murder was one of these, but a woman who concealed the fact that she had given birth to a child suffered the same fate. Burglary, aiding escaped slaves or encouraging slaves to escape, and even homosexuality, were all seen as crimes warranting execution.
We might be shocked by this in today’s world, but this was still mild in comparison to the two hundred crimes for which you could get put to death in Britain!
Why Codification was Considered Essential to Reform
Because a great many laws were never written down in a way that explained how crime should be defined and what penalties should be exacted, the law was very open to interpretation. To rational thinkers, this seemed to leave the door wide open to unfairness. They argued that laws should be clearly defined and that penalties should be consistently applied. The only way to do this was codification of laws.
Benefit of Clergy, a Throwback to the Middle Ages
Apart from a lack of clarity leading to unfairness, so-called Benefit of Clergy made matters worse. The idea originated in medieval times when secular governments could not prosecute the clergy. In those days, you had to prove that you were a member of the clergy, but later, anyone who could read a passage from a Latin Bible could claim this amnesty.
By the time North Carolina adopted “Benefit of Clergy,” it was open to everyone, and instead of making you immune from punishment, it only ensured that you got a lighter penalty. Directly after independence, Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson tabled a bill that would have abolished the death penalty for all crimes except murder or treason. It also would have eliminated Benefit of Clergy altogether. However, the bill was not passed, and other states were the first to update their laws.
North Carolina was slower in its reform, and archaic punishments such as the pillory were still prescribed in some criminal cases. Mutilation was also a common punishment. For example, if you lied in court, you would have your ears cut off. Branding, ducking stools and flogging were commonly applied, and the richer and whiter you were, the less likely you would be to face them.
Ducking was often used to punish women who were “scolds,” and being drunk on a Sunday would see you in the stocks where, besides being very uncomfortable, passersby could mock you and pelt you with filth. Jail sentences were unheard of because there were no state prisons, so punishments consisted of the death penalty, torture or public humiliation.
1855 Reforms an Improvement
1855 legal reforms reduced the number of crimes punishable by death to twelve and were intended to result in the construction of a state prison in which criminals could be rehabilitated. But no prison was built, and further reform which would alter the law into a form that would resemble the legal code that a criminal defense attorney of today is familiar with would wait until after the Civil War.
When Criminal Punishment Was at its Bloodiest, few had Access to a Criminal Defense Attorney, But Times Have Changed
If you or someone close to you is facing criminal charges, you may feel that you are in a very bad position, and we understand your distress. However, we can be thankful for the fact that NC criminal law no longer prescribes public floggings, physical mutilation, and torture.
In addition, you are entitled to representation by a criminal defense attorney, and between codification of law and hundreds of years of legal precedent, it is possible for attorneys to predict outcomes with confidence. Not only that, but they can seek proven defense and penalty mitigation strategies that will limit or even eliminate the personal and legal consequences you face.
Although horse theft (formerly a death penalty offense) is less common today, and despite the fact that you won’t be hanged for the modern-day equivalent (Grand Theft Auto), having a good criminal defense attorney will still give you the edge, even when evidence is incontrovertible.
If you need legal advice from a criminal defense attorney, choose Welsh and Avery. Our experienced legal professionals will put their expertise to work on your behalf. Call us on (910) 405-8459 or contact us online. | <urn:uuid:123df34e-f3a1-4e6a-bd4c-e856d962915a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.tjaverylaw.com/blog/2017/august/where-did-nc-laws-come-from-a-criminal-defense-a/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00045.warc.gz | en | 0.98505 | 1,144 | 3.765625 | 4 | [
-0.6364426016807556,
-0.06594997644424438,
0.0033766741398721933,
-0.3724278211593628,
0.15870808064937592,
0.02787947468459606,
0.428511381149292,
-0.4760284423828125,
0.37707817554473877,
0.11918413639068604,
-0.15480563044548035,
0.12238844484090805,
-0.04405985772609711,
-0.18496657907... | 15 | As you will know, North Carolina was once a British Colony. As a result, the first Western-style laws we had were based on British law. It consisted of two components: statutory law and common law. Although we can trace statutes back to the dates when they were passed by the British Parliament, common law is much older. Common law consists of all the things we know to be right and wrong.
For example, as every criminal defense attorney and member of the public knows, theft is wrong. Common law wasn’t written up or codified as law, but the ways in which cases based on common law were handled was determined by legal precedent – the way in which courts handled similar matters in the past. To this day, legal precedents influence what we can expect when laws are enforced.
States Also Made Their Own Laws, Much as They do Today
During the British Colonial era, states also passed their own laws, and after independence, states maintained the laws that had previously governed them. At times, the punishments for breaking the law were extremely brutal, and reformers began to push for change. In North Carolina, criminal defense attorneys would have had their work cut out just ensuring that certain clients weren’t put to death.
Two hundred years ago, there were 28 felonies that were punishable by death. As you would expect, murder was one of these, but a woman who concealed the fact that she had given birth to a child suffered the same fate. Burglary, aiding escaped slaves or encouraging slaves to escape, and even homosexuality, were all seen as crimes warranting execution.
We might be shocked by this in today’s world, but this was still mild in comparison to the two hundred crimes for which you could get put to death in Britain!
Why Codification was Considered Essential to Reform
Because a great many laws were never written down in a way that explained how crime should be defined and what penalties should be exacted, the law was very open to interpretation. To rational thinkers, this seemed to leave the door wide open to unfairness. They argued that laws should be clearly defined and that penalties should be consistently applied. The only way to do this was codification of laws.
Benefit of Clergy, a Throwback to the Middle Ages
Apart from a lack of clarity leading to unfairness, so-called Benefit of Clergy made matters worse. The idea originated in medieval times when secular governments could not prosecute the clergy. In those days, you had to prove that you were a member of the clergy, but later, anyone who could read a passage from a Latin Bible could claim this amnesty.
By the time North Carolina adopted “Benefit of Clergy,” it was open to everyone, and instead of making you immune from punishment, it only ensured that you got a lighter penalty. Directly after independence, Virginia’s Thomas Jefferson tabled a bill that would have abolished the death penalty for all crimes except murder or treason. It also would have eliminated Benefit of Clergy altogether. However, the bill was not passed, and other states were the first to update their laws.
North Carolina was slower in its reform, and archaic punishments such as the pillory were still prescribed in some criminal cases. Mutilation was also a common punishment. For example, if you lied in court, you would have your ears cut off. Branding, ducking stools and flogging were commonly applied, and the richer and whiter you were, the less likely you would be to face them.
Ducking was often used to punish women who were “scolds,” and being drunk on a Sunday would see you in the stocks where, besides being very uncomfortable, passersby could mock you and pelt you with filth. Jail sentences were unheard of because there were no state prisons, so punishments consisted of the death penalty, torture or public humiliation.
1855 Reforms an Improvement
1855 legal reforms reduced the number of crimes punishable by death to twelve and were intended to result in the construction of a state prison in which criminals could be rehabilitated. But no prison was built, and further reform which would alter the law into a form that would resemble the legal code that a criminal defense attorney of today is familiar with would wait until after the Civil War.
When Criminal Punishment Was at its Bloodiest, few had Access to a Criminal Defense Attorney, But Times Have Changed
If you or someone close to you is facing criminal charges, you may feel that you are in a very bad position, and we understand your distress. However, we can be thankful for the fact that NC criminal law no longer prescribes public floggings, physical mutilation, and torture.
In addition, you are entitled to representation by a criminal defense attorney, and between codification of law and hundreds of years of legal precedent, it is possible for attorneys to predict outcomes with confidence. Not only that, but they can seek proven defense and penalty mitigation strategies that will limit or even eliminate the personal and legal consequences you face.
Although horse theft (formerly a death penalty offense) is less common today, and despite the fact that you won’t be hanged for the modern-day equivalent (Grand Theft Auto), having a good criminal defense attorney will still give you the edge, even when evidence is incontrovertible.
If you need legal advice from a criminal defense attorney, choose Welsh and Avery. Our experienced legal professionals will put their expertise to work on your behalf. Call us on (910) 405-8459 or contact us online. | 1,125 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Historical painting in the City Hall of Leuven: A reminder of collective trauma
Friday, 22 November 2019
“Antonia van Roesmale commenting on the bible” by Belgian artist André Hennebicq, 1882.
Despite its famed university and openness to the freedom of thought and research, Leuven was not spared the inquisition during the Spanish rule of the Low Countries in the 16th century.
The inquisition persecuted not only Jews and heretics but also other Christians, whom it did not tolerate because they dared to preach the Bible in their native languages.
A reminder of the dramatic events in Leuven during that period can be seen in a painting in the grand Gothic meeting room in the City Hall. The painting is from 1882 and made by André Hennebicq, a Belgian painter specialising in historical pictures and murals. It shows a woman explaining the Bible to a group of reform-minded men and women.
The name of the woman is Antonia van Roesmale but she is often confused with another woman named Katelijn Metsys. Both women were accused of heresy by the inquisition in Leuven and were sentenced to death in 1543. While three others accused were beheaded or burned at the stake, after being strangled, the two women met a terrible death and were buried alive according to legend.
History professor Violet Soen from KU Leuven told The Brussels Times that the painting can be seen as an expression of the visual propaganda in the culture debate between Liberals and Catholics in 19th century Belgium. The main character is a local woman about whom not much is known. What is sure is that the trial and the executions caused a collective trauma in Leuven.
During that period, residents and students in Leuven, among others from Spain, were interested in the reformation of the Church. However, it was forbidden to study the Bible on your own or to read non-authorised translations. Reading the Bible was done in secrecy and could lead to accusations of heresy and punishable offences.
Martin Luther, who spearheaded the reformation movement, was excommunicated, and even Erasmus of Rotterdam, who had founded Collegium Trilingue in Leuven for the study and translation of the Bible, was suspected of heresy and had to find refuge in Basel. In the Edict of Worms (1521) and following laws (“placards”), the Catholic Church criminalized the dissemination of reform ideas.
While Spain and the Low Countries were ruled by the same Spanish King Charles V, who was also the Holy Roman Emperor, professor Soen emphasises that the notorious Spanish inquisition was not directly involved in the trials in Leuven. Those responsible for the trials were often university professors, who served as inquisitors or investigators, in cooperation with local authorities.
Dr. Gert Gielis, also a historian from KU Leuven, has published several studies on the “Leuven heretics” but admits that he would like to study them in even more detail, since several details are still not entirely clear.
“This is indeed an intriguing, yet little known episode in the history of the Low Countries,” he says. “The painting of André Hennebicq is of course a 19th century romanticized interpretation of the episode, but that makes it interesting in its own respect.”
“Here, a particular inquisitorial system was operating, with several jurisdictions and authorities interacting, cooperating and conflicting with each other. The majority of the Leuven reformers were not prosecuted by inquisitors, but by a secular court, and some were prosecuted by the court of the university,” Gielis explains.
There were a number of different courts depending on whether the investigators were priests or lay lawyers and appointed by the Pope or not. Compared to Spain, there was apparently no formal inquisition tribunal in the Low Countries with priests in charge of the investigations.
That said, the purpose ‒ to eradicate “heresy” and suppress free thinking ‒ was the same, as were the punishments and death sentences. Torture was probably used to extract confession. The courts in the Low Countries might have been more independent than in Spain, but those who advised them came from the university. Altogether, an estimated 1,200 to 1,500 “heretics” were tried between 1520 and 1570. | <urn:uuid:45db2f0f-7dc0-4850-a4a3-f1d50aeb7d0e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/art-culture/79843/historical-painting-in-the-city-hall-of-leuven-a-reminder-of-collective-trauma/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00244.warc.gz | en | 0.982404 | 932 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.05671422928571701,
0.15152977406978607,
0.14981228113174438,
-0.015580680221319199,
0.39941009879112244,
-0.17744117975234985,
0.13442973792552948,
0.21987447142601013,
0.12331114709377289,
0.1481705605983734,
-0.041593294590711594,
-0.5155335664749146,
-0.42442911863327026,
0.2908532917... | 6 | Historical painting in the City Hall of Leuven: A reminder of collective trauma
Friday, 22 November 2019
“Antonia van Roesmale commenting on the bible” by Belgian artist André Hennebicq, 1882.
Despite its famed university and openness to the freedom of thought and research, Leuven was not spared the inquisition during the Spanish rule of the Low Countries in the 16th century.
The inquisition persecuted not only Jews and heretics but also other Christians, whom it did not tolerate because they dared to preach the Bible in their native languages.
A reminder of the dramatic events in Leuven during that period can be seen in a painting in the grand Gothic meeting room in the City Hall. The painting is from 1882 and made by André Hennebicq, a Belgian painter specialising in historical pictures and murals. It shows a woman explaining the Bible to a group of reform-minded men and women.
The name of the woman is Antonia van Roesmale but she is often confused with another woman named Katelijn Metsys. Both women were accused of heresy by the inquisition in Leuven and were sentenced to death in 1543. While three others accused were beheaded or burned at the stake, after being strangled, the two women met a terrible death and were buried alive according to legend.
History professor Violet Soen from KU Leuven told The Brussels Times that the painting can be seen as an expression of the visual propaganda in the culture debate between Liberals and Catholics in 19th century Belgium. The main character is a local woman about whom not much is known. What is sure is that the trial and the executions caused a collective trauma in Leuven.
During that period, residents and students in Leuven, among others from Spain, were interested in the reformation of the Church. However, it was forbidden to study the Bible on your own or to read non-authorised translations. Reading the Bible was done in secrecy and could lead to accusations of heresy and punishable offences.
Martin Luther, who spearheaded the reformation movement, was excommunicated, and even Erasmus of Rotterdam, who had founded Collegium Trilingue in Leuven for the study and translation of the Bible, was suspected of heresy and had to find refuge in Basel. In the Edict of Worms (1521) and following laws (“placards”), the Catholic Church criminalized the dissemination of reform ideas.
While Spain and the Low Countries were ruled by the same Spanish King Charles V, who was also the Holy Roman Emperor, professor Soen emphasises that the notorious Spanish inquisition was not directly involved in the trials in Leuven. Those responsible for the trials were often university professors, who served as inquisitors or investigators, in cooperation with local authorities.
Dr. Gert Gielis, also a historian from KU Leuven, has published several studies on the “Leuven heretics” but admits that he would like to study them in even more detail, since several details are still not entirely clear.
“This is indeed an intriguing, yet little known episode in the history of the Low Countries,” he says. “The painting of André Hennebicq is of course a 19th century romanticized interpretation of the episode, but that makes it interesting in its own respect.”
“Here, a particular inquisitorial system was operating, with several jurisdictions and authorities interacting, cooperating and conflicting with each other. The majority of the Leuven reformers were not prosecuted by inquisitors, but by a secular court, and some were prosecuted by the court of the university,” Gielis explains.
There were a number of different courts depending on whether the investigators were priests or lay lawyers and appointed by the Pope or not. Compared to Spain, there was apparently no formal inquisition tribunal in the Low Countries with priests in charge of the investigations.
That said, the purpose ‒ to eradicate “heresy” and suppress free thinking ‒ was the same, as were the punishments and death sentences. Torture was probably used to extract confession. The courts in the Low Countries might have been more independent than in Spain, but those who advised them came from the university. Altogether, an estimated 1,200 to 1,500 “heretics” were tried between 1520 and 1570. | 923 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Dangers of Totalitarianism: 1984, George Orwell
In the novel 1984, George Orwell creates a perfect totalitarian government warning the West countries (such as Spain and Russia) what their society may become in thirty five years. This book was written in 1949, predicting what may happen in the near future if totalitarianism was not rebelled against.
Totalitarianism is a form of government in which the state controls all aspects of life. The totalitarian government controls politics, economics, values and beliefs of its society. Many countries had a totalitarian government, such as the Soviet Union which was ruled by Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin promoted himself as dictator of the Soviet Union after Vladimir Lenin’s death. Stalin used terror and propaganda to control his society. Citizens were forced to obey all rules of the government. They were spied on to be sure that everyone obeyed all the rules; if any rules were broken there were severe punishments, sometimes even death.
In 1984, the society was very similar to the society of the Soviet Union when Stalin was ruler. In Orwell’s society, the party watched every single citizen all day and if any rules were broken the citizen would be sent to the Ministry of Love where they were tortured. The party eliminated every word that could describe a rebellion. Even thinking a rebellious thought was against the law. The party had an ability to control the past, the present and the future.
Big Brother, who was known to be the ruler of the party, was to make the citizens feel loved, protected and comforted, although he could also be a great fear. All over Oceania there were signs that said “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU”. Big Brother was the face of the party. It was never known if Big Brother actually exists. Big Brother symbolizes the party’s
Please join StudyMode to read the full document | <urn:uuid:2fa381c1-1dec-429b-9378-c10be5d368c7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.studymode.com/essays/The-Dangers-Of-Totalitarianism-63607732.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681625.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125222506-20200126012506-00472.warc.gz | en | 0.985585 | 384 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.25025707483291626,
0.048869192600250244,
0.02049807459115982,
0.08810290694236755,
0.2997545003890991,
0.15235237777233124,
0.2799138128757477,
0.14899125695228577,
0.07149595767259598,
0.3591400980949402,
-0.08573321253061295,
0.32398200035095215,
0.41119417548179626,
0.345491319894790... | 1 | The Dangers of Totalitarianism: 1984, George Orwell
In the novel 1984, George Orwell creates a perfect totalitarian government warning the West countries (such as Spain and Russia) what their society may become in thirty five years. This book was written in 1949, predicting what may happen in the near future if totalitarianism was not rebelled against.
Totalitarianism is a form of government in which the state controls all aspects of life. The totalitarian government controls politics, economics, values and beliefs of its society. Many countries had a totalitarian government, such as the Soviet Union which was ruled by Joseph Stalin. Joseph Stalin promoted himself as dictator of the Soviet Union after Vladimir Lenin’s death. Stalin used terror and propaganda to control his society. Citizens were forced to obey all rules of the government. They were spied on to be sure that everyone obeyed all the rules; if any rules were broken there were severe punishments, sometimes even death.
In 1984, the society was very similar to the society of the Soviet Union when Stalin was ruler. In Orwell’s society, the party watched every single citizen all day and if any rules were broken the citizen would be sent to the Ministry of Love where they were tortured. The party eliminated every word that could describe a rebellion. Even thinking a rebellious thought was against the law. The party had an ability to control the past, the present and the future.
Big Brother, who was known to be the ruler of the party, was to make the citizens feel loved, protected and comforted, although he could also be a great fear. All over Oceania there were signs that said “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU”. Big Brother was the face of the party. It was never known if Big Brother actually exists. Big Brother symbolizes the party’s
Please join StudyMode to read the full document | 389 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The figure comes from the Global Slavery Index, which defines slavery in a broad way to include forced labour, debt bondage, human trafficking, forced or servile marriage and commercial sexual exploitation. It covers 167 countries, but interviews were only carried out in 25, so the figures for the number of slaves in countries where no fieldwork took place are only extrapolations.
40% of all slaves in the world are in India, while 3.2 million are in China and 2.1 million in Pakistan, according to the 2016 Global Slavery Index. This includes both children and adults.
Franklin sent a petition to Congress asking for the abolition of slavery and an end to the slave trade in 1790. He wanted to 'promote mercy and justice toward this distressed Race', but it was immediately denounced by pro-slavery congressmen and sparked a heated debate in both the House and the Senate.
Africans arriving to America the were originally considered 'indentured servants': they had a contract which obligated them to work for its holder for the period it set, after which they were free. That's what happened to Anthony Johnson, a black Angolan, who achieved his freedom and went on to run his own tobacco farm and hold his own indentured servants. Among them was a man called John Casor. Casor claimed his contract was for 8 years. But Johnson took him to court, claiming he was his servant for life. The court sided with Johnson, making Castor the first person to be arbitrarily declared a servant for life --a slave-- in the U.S.
Most of the labor that built the White House, the United States Capitol, and other early government buildings was provided by African Americans, both enslaved and free. The government did not own slaves, but it did hire them from their masters.
The word 'itutu' is a quality of character denoting composure in the face of danger, as well as playfulness, humor, generosity, and conciliation. It was carried to America with slavery and became a code through which to conceal rage and cope with brutality with dignity.
Egypt's chief archaeologist, Zahi Hawass, says he builders came from poor families from the north and the south, and were respected for their work. So much that those who died during construction were given the honour of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs.
There are 14 described species of 'slave-raiding' ants. They steal ants from nearby colonies and carry them back to their own nest.
If a criminal forced a victim already inside the UK or from the EU into servitude, they could not be prosecuted for trafficking. So the new law was set out to recognise forced labour as a crime on its own.
27 million people are estimated to be enslaved today, more than double the total number believed to have been taken from Africa during the transatlantic slave trade.
Niger abolished slavery in 1960, Bhutan in 1958, Qatar in 1952 and Kuwait in 1949.
Not only did salt serve to flavor and preserve food, it made a good antiseptic, which is why the Roman word for it is a first cousin to Salus, the goddess of health.
Some estimate that up to 4.9 million slaves were brought to Brazil from Africa during the period from 1501 to 1866, the most of any country. First sugar, then gold, diamond, cattle ranching and foodstuff production sparked the importation of African slaves. In 1888, Brazil became the last country in the Western world to abolish slavery.
Over a million Europeans were captured and sold as slaves to North Africa between 1530 and 1780.
Ottoman and Berber pirates and privateers, who operated from North Africa, engaged in raids on European coastal towns and villages. The main purpose of their attacks was slaves for the Ottoman slave trade as well as the general Arab slavery market in North Africa and the Middle East. Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Jewish.
Romans understood that slaves could not simply be terrified into being good at their job. Instead, the Romans used various techniques to encourage their slaves to work productively and willingly, from bonuses and long-term inducements, to acts designed to boost morale and generate team spirit.
Cervantes was as a soldier in a regiment of the Spanish Navy Marines, when in 1575, his galley was attacked by Ottoman pirates. After five years and four unsuccessful escape attempts, he was ransomed by his parents and the Trinitarians and returned to his family in Madrid.
slave ship captain
wrote the song
The Christian hymn was written by the English poet John Newton in 1772. Some decades before that, a violent storm battered his vessel so severely that he called out to God for mercy: this moment marked his spiritual conversion. But he continued slave trading until 1754.
Johnson even acknowledged their two daughters as his children, giving them his surname, much to the consternation of some of his constituents.
The amendment was adopted in 1865 but Mississippi was a holdout. At the time, state lawmakers were upset that they had not been compensated for the value of freed slaves. So it wasn't until 2013 that the state of Mississippi submitted the required documentation to ratify the amendment, forced by two medical school colleagues who joined forces to resolve the historical oversight.
Academic Edward Baptist's book, 'The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery And The Making Of American Capitalism', crunched economic data to come up with this back-of-the-envelope estimate.
The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 provided for payments to slave-owners, so the British government raised £20 million, which amounted to 40% of the Treasury's annual income.
During Saturnalia, slaves were treated to a banquet like those usually enjoyed by their masters. Slaves were also allowed to disrespect their masters without punishment. Gambling and dice-playing was also permitted, along with overeating and drunkenness.
He was 14 years old in 1989 when he left his native Nigeria with the couple who brought him to the UK. He believed he would be working as a paid 'houseboy' and receive education in the UK, but he ended up in servitude.
Current available evidence of the word 'snowflake' dates it only to early 18th century Missouri, where they gave that name to those who valued white people over black people.
Slavery was a hot topic and Buchanan kept neutral image to assure political capital from both sides. He bought slaves, then turned many of them into his servants, so while technically free, they were still bound to him for years, making his position ambiguous.
In 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency, the slave population was nearly four million, making the ratio of free to enslaved Americans approximately 7:1. | <urn:uuid:a6ad1a76-f0cf-4b81-bbcf-5f26dd5909a8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.factslides.com/s-Slavery | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00509.warc.gz | en | 0.986055 | 1,423 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.18068251013755798,
0.46897777915000916,
0.22693705558776855,
-0.04010581225156784,
-0.01654965803027153,
-0.03603309392929077,
0.08331578224897385,
-0.17987403273582458,
0.062121301889419556,
0.41581445932388306,
0.6188462972640991,
-0.0035233167000114918,
-0.05434455722570419,
0.498361... | 7 | The figure comes from the Global Slavery Index, which defines slavery in a broad way to include forced labour, debt bondage, human trafficking, forced or servile marriage and commercial sexual exploitation. It covers 167 countries, but interviews were only carried out in 25, so the figures for the number of slaves in countries where no fieldwork took place are only extrapolations.
40% of all slaves in the world are in India, while 3.2 million are in China and 2.1 million in Pakistan, according to the 2016 Global Slavery Index. This includes both children and adults.
Franklin sent a petition to Congress asking for the abolition of slavery and an end to the slave trade in 1790. He wanted to 'promote mercy and justice toward this distressed Race', but it was immediately denounced by pro-slavery congressmen and sparked a heated debate in both the House and the Senate.
Africans arriving to America the were originally considered 'indentured servants': they had a contract which obligated them to work for its holder for the period it set, after which they were free. That's what happened to Anthony Johnson, a black Angolan, who achieved his freedom and went on to run his own tobacco farm and hold his own indentured servants. Among them was a man called John Casor. Casor claimed his contract was for 8 years. But Johnson took him to court, claiming he was his servant for life. The court sided with Johnson, making Castor the first person to be arbitrarily declared a servant for life --a slave-- in the U.S.
Most of the labor that built the White House, the United States Capitol, and other early government buildings was provided by African Americans, both enslaved and free. The government did not own slaves, but it did hire them from their masters.
The word 'itutu' is a quality of character denoting composure in the face of danger, as well as playfulness, humor, generosity, and conciliation. It was carried to America with slavery and became a code through which to conceal rage and cope with brutality with dignity.
Egypt's chief archaeologist, Zahi Hawass, says he builders came from poor families from the north and the south, and were respected for their work. So much that those who died during construction were given the honour of being buried in the tombs near the sacred pyramids of their pharaohs.
There are 14 described species of 'slave-raiding' ants. They steal ants from nearby colonies and carry them back to their own nest.
If a criminal forced a victim already inside the UK or from the EU into servitude, they could not be prosecuted for trafficking. So the new law was set out to recognise forced labour as a crime on its own.
27 million people are estimated to be enslaved today, more than double the total number believed to have been taken from Africa during the transatlantic slave trade.
Niger abolished slavery in 1960, Bhutan in 1958, Qatar in 1952 and Kuwait in 1949.
Not only did salt serve to flavor and preserve food, it made a good antiseptic, which is why the Roman word for it is a first cousin to Salus, the goddess of health.
Some estimate that up to 4.9 million slaves were brought to Brazil from Africa during the period from 1501 to 1866, the most of any country. First sugar, then gold, diamond, cattle ranching and foodstuff production sparked the importation of African slaves. In 1888, Brazil became the last country in the Western world to abolish slavery.
Over a million Europeans were captured and sold as slaves to North Africa between 1530 and 1780.
Ottoman and Berber pirates and privateers, who operated from North Africa, engaged in raids on European coastal towns and villages. The main purpose of their attacks was slaves for the Ottoman slave trade as well as the general Arab slavery market in North Africa and the Middle East. Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or Jewish.
Romans understood that slaves could not simply be terrified into being good at their job. Instead, the Romans used various techniques to encourage their slaves to work productively and willingly, from bonuses and long-term inducements, to acts designed to boost morale and generate team spirit.
Cervantes was as a soldier in a regiment of the Spanish Navy Marines, when in 1575, his galley was attacked by Ottoman pirates. After five years and four unsuccessful escape attempts, he was ransomed by his parents and the Trinitarians and returned to his family in Madrid.
slave ship captain
wrote the song
The Christian hymn was written by the English poet John Newton in 1772. Some decades before that, a violent storm battered his vessel so severely that he called out to God for mercy: this moment marked his spiritual conversion. But he continued slave trading until 1754.
Johnson even acknowledged their two daughters as his children, giving them his surname, much to the consternation of some of his constituents.
The amendment was adopted in 1865 but Mississippi was a holdout. At the time, state lawmakers were upset that they had not been compensated for the value of freed slaves. So it wasn't until 2013 that the state of Mississippi submitted the required documentation to ratify the amendment, forced by two medical school colleagues who joined forces to resolve the historical oversight.
Academic Edward Baptist's book, 'The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery And The Making Of American Capitalism', crunched economic data to come up with this back-of-the-envelope estimate.
The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 provided for payments to slave-owners, so the British government raised £20 million, which amounted to 40% of the Treasury's annual income.
During Saturnalia, slaves were treated to a banquet like those usually enjoyed by their masters. Slaves were also allowed to disrespect their masters without punishment. Gambling and dice-playing was also permitted, along with overeating and drunkenness.
He was 14 years old in 1989 when he left his native Nigeria with the couple who brought him to the UK. He believed he would be working as a paid 'houseboy' and receive education in the UK, but he ended up in servitude.
Current available evidence of the word 'snowflake' dates it only to early 18th century Missouri, where they gave that name to those who valued white people over black people.
Slavery was a hot topic and Buchanan kept neutral image to assure political capital from both sides. He bought slaves, then turned many of them into his servants, so while technically free, they were still bound to him for years, making his position ambiguous.
In 1860, when Abraham Lincoln was elected to the presidency, the slave population was nearly four million, making the ratio of free to enslaved Americans approximately 7:1. | 1,475 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Malcolm X had become a legend when it came to the civil rights battle in the 1960's. He was born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska. He kept the idea of racial segregation because he acknowledged that only his solution would improve African American lives, and that the white race would always dominate society. Malcolm grew up during poverty and racism, leading to bad habits throughout his life. The film Malcolm X, properly depicts the life of Malcolm because the actors portray Malcolm's poverty stances of his childhood, the results of Malcolm's upbringing , and steps towards civil rights activism. .
The beginning of Malcolm's harsh upbringing gave little to no indication that he would later rise to such eminence. "Malcolm was born on May 19th 1925" ("Malcolm X." 1). He grew up having both a mother and a father, Louis Little and Earl Little. Malcolm grew up during the Jim Crow laws, his family was also not in a well economic state. "Malcolm's parents home was attacked by the Ku Klux Klan in 1925, before he is even born" ("Malcolm X." UXL 1). .
After the attack, Malcolm moved several times to try to avoid prejudice. "Malcolm and his family moved to Lansing, Michigan and again is attacked by a group called the Black Legion, who burned his home to the ground" ("Malcolm X." UXL 1). Both of these groups were known to have been shouting racial slurs, present at the time . He was brought up during the worst time, being divided by not only racial segregation but the Great Depression during the 1930's ("Malcolm X." UXL 1). "In 1937, Malcolm's family was broken up and his mother was confined to a state mental hospital, due to hardships of his family" ("Malcolm X." 1).
Malcolm's father dies and his body is found on the train tracks. Money conflicts start to arise, the family eventually has to go on welfare. Malcolm's family falls apart and he is sent to a foster home due to the government. | <urn:uuid:d113bdc2-4295-4e91-865a-9d6aeee397dd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/219173.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00235.warc.gz | en | 0.991745 | 414 | 3.71875 | 4 | [
-0.3696821928024292,
0.32620152831077576,
0.2762664556503296,
-0.001921847346238792,
0.06177433580160141,
0.32913750410079956,
0.019747499376535416,
-0.3966103196144104,
-0.3054693937301636,
-0.3538980484008789,
0.1365537792444229,
0.3219183683395386,
0.2041502147912979,
0.0369267351925373... | 4 | Malcolm X had become a legend when it came to the civil rights battle in the 1960's. He was born Malcolm Little in Omaha, Nebraska. He kept the idea of racial segregation because he acknowledged that only his solution would improve African American lives, and that the white race would always dominate society. Malcolm grew up during poverty and racism, leading to bad habits throughout his life. The film Malcolm X, properly depicts the life of Malcolm because the actors portray Malcolm's poverty stances of his childhood, the results of Malcolm's upbringing , and steps towards civil rights activism. .
The beginning of Malcolm's harsh upbringing gave little to no indication that he would later rise to such eminence. "Malcolm was born on May 19th 1925" ("Malcolm X." 1). He grew up having both a mother and a father, Louis Little and Earl Little. Malcolm grew up during the Jim Crow laws, his family was also not in a well economic state. "Malcolm's parents home was attacked by the Ku Klux Klan in 1925, before he is even born" ("Malcolm X." UXL 1). .
After the attack, Malcolm moved several times to try to avoid prejudice. "Malcolm and his family moved to Lansing, Michigan and again is attacked by a group called the Black Legion, who burned his home to the ground" ("Malcolm X." UXL 1). Both of these groups were known to have been shouting racial slurs, present at the time . He was brought up during the worst time, being divided by not only racial segregation but the Great Depression during the 1930's ("Malcolm X." UXL 1). "In 1937, Malcolm's family was broken up and his mother was confined to a state mental hospital, due to hardships of his family" ("Malcolm X." 1).
Malcolm's father dies and his body is found on the train tracks. Money conflicts start to arise, the family eventually has to go on welfare. Malcolm's family falls apart and he is sent to a foster home due to the government. | 442 | ENGLISH | 1 |
stiff as in the typical wood-peckers, and a straight strong beak. The beak, however, is not so straight or so strong as in the typical woodpeckers but it is strong enough to bore into wood. Hence this Colaptes, in all the essential parts of its structure, is a woodpecker. Even in such trifling characters as the colouring, the harsh tone of the voice, and undulatory flight, its close blood-relationship to our common woodpecker is plainly declared; yet, as I can assert, not only from my own observations, but from those of the accurate Azara, in certain large districts it does not climb trees, and it makes its nest in holes in banks! In certain other districts, however, this same woodpecker, as Mr. Hudson states, frequents trees, and bores holes in the trunk for its nest. I may mention as another illustration of the varied habits of this genus, that a Mexican Colaptes has been described by De Saussure as boring holes into hard wood in order to lay up a store of acorns.
Petrels are the most aërial and oceanic of birds, but, in the quiet sounds of Tierra del Fuego, the Puffinuria berardi, in its general habits, in its astonishing power of diving, in its manner of swimming and of flying when made to take flight, would be mistaken by any one for an auk or a grebe; nevertheless, it is essentially a petrel, but with many parts of its organisation profoundly modified in relation to its new habits of life; whereas the woodpecker of La Plata has had its structure only slightly modified. In the case of the water-ouzel, the acutest observer, by examining its dead body, would never have suspected its sub-aquatic habits; yet this bird, which is allied to the thrush family, subsists by diving, — using its wings under water and grasping stones with its feet. All the members of the great order of Hymenopterous insects are terrestrial, excepting the genus Proctotrupes, which Sir John Lubbock has discovered to be aquatic in its habits; it often enters the water and dives about by the use not of its legs but of its wings, and remains as long as four hours beneath the surface; yet it exhibits no modification in structure in accordance with its abnormal habits.
He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it, must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met with an animal having habits and structure not in agreement. What can be plainer than that the webbed feet of ducks and geese are formed for swimming? Yet there are upland geese with webbed feet which rarely go near the water; and no one except Audubon, has seen the frigate-bird, which has all its four toes webbed, alight on the surface of the ocean. On the other hand, grebes and coots are eminently aquatic, although their toes are only bordered by membrane. What seems plainer than that the long toes, not furnished with membrane | <urn:uuid:9c2994ab-ff44-4a48-bb50-53a5501cf474> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Origin_of_Species_1872.djvu/164 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00027.warc.gz | en | 0.98221 | 653 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
0.05831517279148102,
-0.24681192636489868,
0.21212182939052582,
-0.1701226830482483,
0.19572295248508453,
0.04053587466478348,
0.47784581780433655,
0.043485529720783234,
-0.04417897388339043,
-0.12292096018791199,
-0.34861528873443604,
-0.5508794784545898,
-0.21209290623664856,
0.142864853... | 1 | stiff as in the typical wood-peckers, and a straight strong beak. The beak, however, is not so straight or so strong as in the typical woodpeckers but it is strong enough to bore into wood. Hence this Colaptes, in all the essential parts of its structure, is a woodpecker. Even in such trifling characters as the colouring, the harsh tone of the voice, and undulatory flight, its close blood-relationship to our common woodpecker is plainly declared; yet, as I can assert, not only from my own observations, but from those of the accurate Azara, in certain large districts it does not climb trees, and it makes its nest in holes in banks! In certain other districts, however, this same woodpecker, as Mr. Hudson states, frequents trees, and bores holes in the trunk for its nest. I may mention as another illustration of the varied habits of this genus, that a Mexican Colaptes has been described by De Saussure as boring holes into hard wood in order to lay up a store of acorns.
Petrels are the most aërial and oceanic of birds, but, in the quiet sounds of Tierra del Fuego, the Puffinuria berardi, in its general habits, in its astonishing power of diving, in its manner of swimming and of flying when made to take flight, would be mistaken by any one for an auk or a grebe; nevertheless, it is essentially a petrel, but with many parts of its organisation profoundly modified in relation to its new habits of life; whereas the woodpecker of La Plata has had its structure only slightly modified. In the case of the water-ouzel, the acutest observer, by examining its dead body, would never have suspected its sub-aquatic habits; yet this bird, which is allied to the thrush family, subsists by diving, — using its wings under water and grasping stones with its feet. All the members of the great order of Hymenopterous insects are terrestrial, excepting the genus Proctotrupes, which Sir John Lubbock has discovered to be aquatic in its habits; it often enters the water and dives about by the use not of its legs but of its wings, and remains as long as four hours beneath the surface; yet it exhibits no modification in structure in accordance with its abnormal habits.
He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it, must occasionally have felt surprise when he has met with an animal having habits and structure not in agreement. What can be plainer than that the webbed feet of ducks and geese are formed for swimming? Yet there are upland geese with webbed feet which rarely go near the water; and no one except Audubon, has seen the frigate-bird, which has all its four toes webbed, alight on the surface of the ocean. On the other hand, grebes and coots are eminently aquatic, although their toes are only bordered by membrane. What seems plainer than that the long toes, not furnished with membrane | 650 | ENGLISH | 1 |
n the History class, Lenny left us a task which was to watch a video from her blog and to read the second chapter form our History book, and then to answer some questions.
Here is the video:
Matías Ripoll and Trinidad Porretti.
1- What were the aims of the league?
2- What happened to Wilson when he returned to USA after signing the Treaty of Versailles?
3- Why did German immigrants in USA not want to join the league?
4- What economic reason did USA give to stay out of the league?
5- How did Americans feel about imperialism in Europe?
6- Why did Poland invade Vilna? Why did the league not act about it?
7- Why was upper Silesia an important region for Poland and Germany?
8- How did the league solve the problem in Vilna?
9- What did the league decide to do about the Aaland Islands?
10- Why did Mussolini invade Greece in the Corfu conflict?
11- Why was the league criticised about the resolution in the Corfu conflict?
12- How did the Geneva protocol weaken the league?
13- Why did Greece invade Belgium in 1925?
14- Why did Greece complain that the league “seemed to have one rule for the large states(such as Italy) and other for the small ones?
1- The principal aims of the League were; to discourage aggression between countries, to encourage countries to disarm, to encourage countries to co-operate, especially in business and trade, and to improve the living and working conditions of people all around the world.This aims would lead to a fair and lasting peace, which the League clearly didn’t achieve, due to WW2.
2- Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Treaty, came back to USA and had problems. Before the USA could even join the league, he needed the approval of the Congress. However, in the USA the idea of joining the league wasn’t supported by everyone, because they didn’t want to get involved in international alliance, but follow it’s own policies and self-interest. In addition, his idea was defeated twice in 1919 and March 1920 by the congress. The Republican candidate for the elections, Warren Harding, campaigned for the opposite than Wilson, isolation, because he thought that the US had enough people and resources to be by themselves. He thought that the European instability, due to the post-war recovery, could affect USA’s stability. Harding won the elections, so when the League opened for Business, the US wasn’t present.
3- The German immigrants in USA didn’t want to join the league because this one, enforced the Treaty of Versailles which was hated by the Germans for the reason that it had weakened and humiliated them previously.
4- The economic reason that USA gave to stay out of the league was that if the league imposed sanctions it might be American Trade and Business that suffered the most. In addition, if she joined the League, she would have to give economic support for troops, as the other members of the League were in an economic depression, due to the post-war recovery.
5- The Americans, according to imperialism in Europe, feared the the League would be dominated by Britain or France because they were the most powerful empires, and would defend themselves, and make all of the decisions. And, the problem was, that many in the US were Anti-Empires.
6- Poland invaded Vilna in 1920 because she was in a dispute with Lithuania due to that she claimed that there were a lot of Poles living in Vilna(because before the Treaty of Versailles, the Lithanian capital belonged to Poland) and therefore it belonged to her. Because of this reason, Lithuania appealed to the league. However, the League (France and Britain), was not prepared to act because the League was new and they had economic issues due to the consequences of WW1. And because they weren’t prepared to act, they failed and therefore let the Poles get their way.
7- Upper Silesia was an important region for Germany and Poland because it was the border area between them, and the region was ethnically mixed with both Germans and Poles. In addition, this region was very rich in resources. This problem was solved by the League which oversaw a peaceful plebiscite(the rural area voted for Poland and the urban one for Germany)and divided the region among Germany and Poland. Finally both countries accepted this decision. This dispute was carried out in a positive way because it was solved in a peaceful and fair manner.
8- The League(France and Britain) didn’t solve this problem because they couldn’t persuade Poland to leave the city. The armed forces weren’t able to pull them out of the city. This meant that Poland was powerful. They didn’t leave the city until the outbreak of World War 2 in 1939.
9- After the dispute in 1921 between Finland and Sweden over the Aaland islands, the League intervened and decided that the islands should belong to Finland avoiding a war between them. Sweden accepted this decision. The organization decided to measure the distance between the islands and countries, as Finland was closer, she got to keep them. This was a fair resolution.
10- Mussolini, the Italian leader during that time, invaded Greece because he was furious and blamed the Greek government for the murder of the Italian general Tellini and his team(who were representing the League to sort out the border between Greece and Albania, and were killed by Greeks). In addition, they invaded Corfu because Mussolini demanded the Greeks to pay a compensation and execute the murderers. However, the Greeks had no idea who the murderers were. So on August the 31st he bombarded Greece and then occupied the Greek island of Corfu, and killed fifteen people.
11- The League was criticised about the resolution of the Corfu conflict because this showed that the weakest of all powers, Italy, could get its way if they were backed up by Britain and France, who agreed to sacrifice justice for cooperation. For this reason, Greece had to pay a compensation to Italy.
12- The Geneva protocol weakened the League because conflicts such as the Corfu dispute could continue happening. The Geneva protocol was supposed to strengthen the League, because it said that if two members were in dispute they would have to ask the League to sort out the disagreement and they would have to accept the Council’s decision. However, as Britain was having general elections, a new Conservative government was chosen and it refused to sign the protocol before it could be put into effect, because they feared if there was another conflict the League would solve it, acting to her own interests, not Britain’s. Therefore, this protocol which was supposed to strengthen the League, ended up doing the opposite. The Geneva protocol showed how Great Britain had control over the League in a negative way, because many countries started to follow GB’s lead by not signing the protocol.
13- Greece invaded Belgium in October 1925 because of the incident on the border in which some Greek soldiers were killed. Greece thought that If Italy had done this, why couldn’t they do the same?So Bulgaria appealed to the League for help and finally, the League demanded both sides to stand their forces down and Greek forces withdraw from Bulgaria. Although they complained that there seemed to be one rule for the smaller, “less important” states, and another for the bigger, “more important” states. The resolution of this conflict was partly successful partly failure, because on the hand, she solved the fact that there could be a war between them. Although, on the other hand, she wasn’t partial or fair with Greece, who had done the same thing Italy did in the Corfu conflict. This showed that the league had a ruling for the big countries and another for the small ones.
14- Greece complained that the League “seemed to have one rule for the large states(such as Italy) and other for the small ones(such as Greece)” because it wasn’t fair, all States should have an only same rule. Because of this, the major states were likely to get things done in their way, they could decide over most of the issues, this meant they had benefits because they were more powerful. This made it clear that larger states were more important than the smaller ones, that they had more priorities, and that was unfair, the League, which was supposed to be fair, was the opposite. | <urn:uuid:4b4828e0-cd98-4943-a635-cb7e85836acb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://matiasripoll.cumbresblogs.com/2016/08/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00179.warc.gz | en | 0.987751 | 1,778 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.325777143239975,
0.12441515922546387,
0.05696019157767296,
-0.27588802576065063,
0.12488686293363571,
0.21445274353027344,
0.007086923345923424,
0.2836611866950989,
0.0790526419878006,
0.06913729012012482,
0.15689930319786072,
0.06470537185668945,
-0.21221554279327393,
0.309315025806427... | 4 | n the History class, Lenny left us a task which was to watch a video from her blog and to read the second chapter form our History book, and then to answer some questions.
Here is the video:
Matías Ripoll and Trinidad Porretti.
1- What were the aims of the league?
2- What happened to Wilson when he returned to USA after signing the Treaty of Versailles?
3- Why did German immigrants in USA not want to join the league?
4- What economic reason did USA give to stay out of the league?
5- How did Americans feel about imperialism in Europe?
6- Why did Poland invade Vilna? Why did the league not act about it?
7- Why was upper Silesia an important region for Poland and Germany?
8- How did the league solve the problem in Vilna?
9- What did the league decide to do about the Aaland Islands?
10- Why did Mussolini invade Greece in the Corfu conflict?
11- Why was the league criticised about the resolution in the Corfu conflict?
12- How did the Geneva protocol weaken the league?
13- Why did Greece invade Belgium in 1925?
14- Why did Greece complain that the league “seemed to have one rule for the large states(such as Italy) and other for the small ones?
1- The principal aims of the League were; to discourage aggression between countries, to encourage countries to disarm, to encourage countries to co-operate, especially in business and trade, and to improve the living and working conditions of people all around the world.This aims would lead to a fair and lasting peace, which the League clearly didn’t achieve, due to WW2.
2- Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Treaty, came back to USA and had problems. Before the USA could even join the league, he needed the approval of the Congress. However, in the USA the idea of joining the league wasn’t supported by everyone, because they didn’t want to get involved in international alliance, but follow it’s own policies and self-interest. In addition, his idea was defeated twice in 1919 and March 1920 by the congress. The Republican candidate for the elections, Warren Harding, campaigned for the opposite than Wilson, isolation, because he thought that the US had enough people and resources to be by themselves. He thought that the European instability, due to the post-war recovery, could affect USA’s stability. Harding won the elections, so when the League opened for Business, the US wasn’t present.
3- The German immigrants in USA didn’t want to join the league because this one, enforced the Treaty of Versailles which was hated by the Germans for the reason that it had weakened and humiliated them previously.
4- The economic reason that USA gave to stay out of the league was that if the league imposed sanctions it might be American Trade and Business that suffered the most. In addition, if she joined the League, she would have to give economic support for troops, as the other members of the League were in an economic depression, due to the post-war recovery.
5- The Americans, according to imperialism in Europe, feared the the League would be dominated by Britain or France because they were the most powerful empires, and would defend themselves, and make all of the decisions. And, the problem was, that many in the US were Anti-Empires.
6- Poland invaded Vilna in 1920 because she was in a dispute with Lithuania due to that she claimed that there were a lot of Poles living in Vilna(because before the Treaty of Versailles, the Lithanian capital belonged to Poland) and therefore it belonged to her. Because of this reason, Lithuania appealed to the league. However, the League (France and Britain), was not prepared to act because the League was new and they had economic issues due to the consequences of WW1. And because they weren’t prepared to act, they failed and therefore let the Poles get their way.
7- Upper Silesia was an important region for Germany and Poland because it was the border area between them, and the region was ethnically mixed with both Germans and Poles. In addition, this region was very rich in resources. This problem was solved by the League which oversaw a peaceful plebiscite(the rural area voted for Poland and the urban one for Germany)and divided the region among Germany and Poland. Finally both countries accepted this decision. This dispute was carried out in a positive way because it was solved in a peaceful and fair manner.
8- The League(France and Britain) didn’t solve this problem because they couldn’t persuade Poland to leave the city. The armed forces weren’t able to pull them out of the city. This meant that Poland was powerful. They didn’t leave the city until the outbreak of World War 2 in 1939.
9- After the dispute in 1921 between Finland and Sweden over the Aaland islands, the League intervened and decided that the islands should belong to Finland avoiding a war between them. Sweden accepted this decision. The organization decided to measure the distance between the islands and countries, as Finland was closer, she got to keep them. This was a fair resolution.
10- Mussolini, the Italian leader during that time, invaded Greece because he was furious and blamed the Greek government for the murder of the Italian general Tellini and his team(who were representing the League to sort out the border between Greece and Albania, and were killed by Greeks). In addition, they invaded Corfu because Mussolini demanded the Greeks to pay a compensation and execute the murderers. However, the Greeks had no idea who the murderers were. So on August the 31st he bombarded Greece and then occupied the Greek island of Corfu, and killed fifteen people.
11- The League was criticised about the resolution of the Corfu conflict because this showed that the weakest of all powers, Italy, could get its way if they were backed up by Britain and France, who agreed to sacrifice justice for cooperation. For this reason, Greece had to pay a compensation to Italy.
12- The Geneva protocol weakened the League because conflicts such as the Corfu dispute could continue happening. The Geneva protocol was supposed to strengthen the League, because it said that if two members were in dispute they would have to ask the League to sort out the disagreement and they would have to accept the Council’s decision. However, as Britain was having general elections, a new Conservative government was chosen and it refused to sign the protocol before it could be put into effect, because they feared if there was another conflict the League would solve it, acting to her own interests, not Britain’s. Therefore, this protocol which was supposed to strengthen the League, ended up doing the opposite. The Geneva protocol showed how Great Britain had control over the League in a negative way, because many countries started to follow GB’s lead by not signing the protocol.
13- Greece invaded Belgium in October 1925 because of the incident on the border in which some Greek soldiers were killed. Greece thought that If Italy had done this, why couldn’t they do the same?So Bulgaria appealed to the League for help and finally, the League demanded both sides to stand their forces down and Greek forces withdraw from Bulgaria. Although they complained that there seemed to be one rule for the smaller, “less important” states, and another for the bigger, “more important” states. The resolution of this conflict was partly successful partly failure, because on the hand, she solved the fact that there could be a war between them. Although, on the other hand, she wasn’t partial or fair with Greece, who had done the same thing Italy did in the Corfu conflict. This showed that the league had a ruling for the big countries and another for the small ones.
14- Greece complained that the League “seemed to have one rule for the large states(such as Italy) and other for the small ones(such as Greece)” because it wasn’t fair, all States should have an only same rule. Because of this, the major states were likely to get things done in their way, they could decide over most of the issues, this meant they had benefits because they were more powerful. This made it clear that larger states were more important than the smaller ones, that they had more priorities, and that was unfair, the League, which was supposed to be fair, was the opposite. | 1,738 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Jack Roosevelt Robinson was born on January 31, 1919 in Cairo, Georgia. That historic day would eventually change the history of the game of baseball.
As a young child, Jackie grew up in the ancestral home of his forefathers. When Jackie was just six months old, his father, Jerry, went to Texas to seek a better fortune. He promised his family he would send for them, but never did. This left Jackie’s mother, Mallie Robinson to raise 5 growing children on her own. Because they were the only African American family on their block, they were often criticized and scorned. Jackie had three brothers named Edgar, Frank and Mack, and a sister named Willa Mae Robinson. When Jackie was 16 months old, he and his family moved to Pasadena, California. Mallie needed a better job and did not want her children to be around the horrible racism of the South.
Jackie went to a public school called Cleveland Elementary School that was not segregated like other schools in California. He continued his education at Washington Middle School, and then later went on to John Muir High School. After graduating, Robinson went to Pasadena City College to start his college career. Later on he transferred to UCLA. Jackie excelled in many sports. He lettered in four sports, baseball, football, basketball, and track. He was the first in UCLA history to ever do so. Jackie also met his future wife at UCLA. Rachel Issum was Jackie’s soul mate. They were married on February 10, 1946.
After leaving college, Jackie was drafted into the United States Army and was asked to serve in Fort Riley, Kansas. Soon after, Jackie was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant and then was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas. He then joined the 761st "Black Panthers" Tank Battalion. Robinson did not get to see combat because he refused to move to the back after sitting next to his friend, who was a white lady. The driver told Jackie to move to the back but Jackie refused, and was kicked out of the Army.
After his time in the Army, Jackie decided to focus on baseball. He tried out for the Negro Leagues and played for the Kansas City Monarchs. Later on, Jackie tried out for the Red Sox, but not one person showed up for the tryout.
Branch Rickey, the president of the Dodgers, recognized Jackie’s... | <urn:uuid:bd1c1845-c685-4071-aa19-8d8f8982f40d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/jackie-robinson-32 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00287.warc.gz | en | 0.992055 | 492 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
-0.5094529390335083,
0.7090645432472229,
0.14908887445926666,
-0.11582896113395691,
0.19666482508182526,
0.18667031824588776,
0.033553190529346466,
-0.11810269206762314,
-0.06947220116853714,
-0.3379477262496948,
0.32026591897010803,
-0.17124003171920776,
0.20090530812740326,
0.01502833236... | 1 | Jack Roosevelt Robinson was born on January 31, 1919 in Cairo, Georgia. That historic day would eventually change the history of the game of baseball.
As a young child, Jackie grew up in the ancestral home of his forefathers. When Jackie was just six months old, his father, Jerry, went to Texas to seek a better fortune. He promised his family he would send for them, but never did. This left Jackie’s mother, Mallie Robinson to raise 5 growing children on her own. Because they were the only African American family on their block, they were often criticized and scorned. Jackie had three brothers named Edgar, Frank and Mack, and a sister named Willa Mae Robinson. When Jackie was 16 months old, he and his family moved to Pasadena, California. Mallie needed a better job and did not want her children to be around the horrible racism of the South.
Jackie went to a public school called Cleveland Elementary School that was not segregated like other schools in California. He continued his education at Washington Middle School, and then later went on to John Muir High School. After graduating, Robinson went to Pasadena City College to start his college career. Later on he transferred to UCLA. Jackie excelled in many sports. He lettered in four sports, baseball, football, basketball, and track. He was the first in UCLA history to ever do so. Jackie also met his future wife at UCLA. Rachel Issum was Jackie’s soul mate. They were married on February 10, 1946.
After leaving college, Jackie was drafted into the United States Army and was asked to serve in Fort Riley, Kansas. Soon after, Jackie was commissioned a 2nd lieutenant and then was reassigned to Fort Hood, Texas. He then joined the 761st "Black Panthers" Tank Battalion. Robinson did not get to see combat because he refused to move to the back after sitting next to his friend, who was a white lady. The driver told Jackie to move to the back but Jackie refused, and was kicked out of the Army.
After his time in the Army, Jackie decided to focus on baseball. He tried out for the Negro Leagues and played for the Kansas City Monarchs. Later on, Jackie tried out for the Red Sox, but not one person showed up for the tryout.
Branch Rickey, the president of the Dodgers, recognized Jackie’s... | 498 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Ivan IV the Terrible
(1530-1584 biennium) – the Grand Duke of Moscow and “All Russia”, the first Russian king of the Rurik dynasty. He had a steep and unbridled temperament, the main idea of government was the strengthening of the autocracy and the strengthening of the centralization of the state. He carried out many reforms and during the 40-year reign turned Rus from a backward, fragmented country into a great power. With the elected Rada he abolished the feeding, completed the labial, conducted the zemstvo and other reforms, established the oprichnina, abolished the peasant way out on the Yuryev day. Under him, Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1556) khanates were conquered, Ermak’s campaign to Siberia was organized (1581), the development of book printing in Russia was started. He tried to gain access to the Baltic Sea, but failed, having lost the Livonian War (1558-83). He died in a political and economic crisis, the exact cause of death has not been established so far.
Ivan the Terrible became king in three years.
Ivan IV was the eldest son of Grand Duke Vasily III Ioannovich from the second marriage with Princess Elena Vasilyevna Glinskaya. His birth was greeted with great national joy, since the king had no children for more than 20 years. His father died in 1533, when Ivan was only 3 years old. He inherited the throne of the Grand Duke of Moscow. For 5 years, while the boy grew up and received education, his mother Elena was the regent of the state. In 1583 the mother died. After her death, around the throne, a power struggle broke out between the Boyar clans: the Shuiskys, Belskys and Klinskys. From the correspondence of the tsar: “We, with my only-born brother, who was deceased Georgi in the Base, began to be brought up as strangers or the last poor, then we suffered hardships in clothes and food.” At age 13, he tried to take the first step for his own approval, ordering to take into custody Prince Andrey Shuisky, and then to execute him. January 8, 1547 16-year-old Ivan was married to the kingdom, becoming the first king of “all Russia”. Perhaps because his childhood was spent in such intolerable conditions of the struggle for power, he became a cruel tyrant.
Mother of Ivan IV Elena Vasilievna died a violent death.
According to some assumptions, it could have been poisoned by hostile boyars. Spectral analysis of Elena Glinskaya’s hair showed an increased content of mercury, which again suggests thoughts of deliberate killing. However, perhaps another assumption: in those distant times, mercury was often added to the cosmetics of women and, accordingly, applied to the face. Perhaps this is what led to the death.
Ivan the Terrible was a mentally unbalanced man of a weak mind.
If the first can be agreed, then the second – a weak mind – can not be recognized. From childhood, he had a fast and flexible mind, which, of course, was distorted in the process of cruel childhood conditions. In his youth he already possessed advanced mental abilities, he was able to pronounce passionate, persuasive people’s speeches, which his contemporaries also noted. He remarkably owned oratory art, perhaps, was the best in it in Russia in the XIV century. In addition, he had an excellent memory and theological erudition. His great mind is also evidenced by extensive correspondence (for example, with Prince Kurbsky and Queen Elizabeth of England). He even wrote music and text from one of the church services.
Ivan the Terrible was a deeply religious person and wanted to make “the third Rome” from Moscow.
Here it is necessary to say about the strong influence on him of the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church Macarius. It was his goal to turn Moscow into a “third Rome”: “Two Romes fell, a third stands, and the fourth does not happen.” He gave young Ivan the idea of crowning the kingdom. Even the meaning of the word “king” comes from the word “Caesar” (abbreviated version). As a result, during the coronation, Ivan was not only proclaimed the tsar of “all Russia”, but also the heir of the Roman emperor and the secular ruler of the entire Christian world.In addition, the king’s confessor, the priest Sylvester, who also had considerable influence on him, inspired the young king with fear of God. However, falling into disgrace, he was deprived of rank and exiled to Solovki.
The young king’s first marriage was successful and long.
The king married the boyar daughter of Anastasia some time after the coronation. He chose a bride from 1500 beauties of Russia. This woman was extremely soft character and gave the young king all that he was deprived from childhood: the warmth of the family hearth, the joy of life, paternity, family happiness. They lived together for 13 years, during which six children were born, only two boys remained alive: Ivan and Fyodor, three girls and Dmitry’s son died. Ivan temperament went to his father, Fedor was weak and weak-willed. But this does not mean that the king was faithful to his wife, rather the opposite. The death of his wife strongly influenced Ivan IV, the loss of an expensive man stirred up the worst features in him and aggravated the unbalanced and rabid nature.
Anastasia – the first wife of the king, was killed.
According to some sources, Anastasia Romanovna often became ill and died before she reached the age of 30. Modern studies of burials have discovered the presence of mercury in the hair of this woman (as well as the mother of the king). Therefore, the question of the cause of death is just as ambivalent as in the study of the death of Elena Vasilievna. Perhaps the beloved wife of Ivan IV was poisoned with mercury chloride – mercuric chloride HgCl2, which is very soluble in drinks and was known to medicine of that time.
Ivan the Terrible captured the Kazan Khanate not from the first campaign.
Actually, three campaigns were undertaken. The first one (1547-1548) did not actually take place, as troops and artillery crossed the fledgling ice of the Volga River, as a result, most of the army and guns just went under the ice. The speech had to be stopped. But the war with the Kazan Khanate was inevitable, since the outgoing threat was too real. The second campaign (1549-1550) was more successful and the Russian troops reached Kazan, but the city itself could not be taken. During this campaign, the fortress of Sviyazhsk was laid, which later became the main military base. It took only 4 weeks to build it. The third campaign (June-October 1552) was the last one, which brought to the king the glory of the conqueror. It involved about 150 thousand people and 150 guns. It should be noted that the Russian artillery of that time was considered one of the strongest. Guns cast under Ivan the Terrible were used in many battles of the 15th and 17th centuries. This campaign ended with the capture of Kazan. About 60,000 Christians were freed from the polonium (according to some sources up to 100 thousand). And in 1556 the Astrakhan Khanate was conquered.
After the capture of Kazan, Ivan the Terrible ordered to build a cathedral.
After each successive victory in the conquest of the khanates, another church was erected on the square in the name of that saint, on whose day the victory was celebrated. After the conquest of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates Ivan IV ordered to build in Moscow the famous Pokrovsky Cathedral (St. Basil’s Cathedral). Architects Barma and Postnik Yakovlev (perhaps it was the same person) erected on the same foundation of 8 temples around the central – the ninth. This 65-meter cathedral was the tallest building in Moscow at that time, holding the championship until the end of the 16th century. Another priceless creation was made in honor of the capture of Kazan – the famous crown of Ivan IV, decorated with rubies, turquoise, pearls with a magnificent unrestricted topaz in the center.
Ivan IV forced the people to choose between the power of the boyars and the king.
Dual power and permanent palace intrigues destroyed the country – the tsar saw it, but did not take any measures at first. The death of the first wife made him more harsh. At the end of 1564, when he suspected boyar treason, he ordered the Kremlin’s gold coffers and holy icons to be loaded into a sleigh and set off for the whole family in the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda.On January 3, 1565, two letters were written to him: the first to the highest ecclesiastical hierarchs, which indicated that the boyars’ conspiracy does not give him the opportunity to lead the country, the second – to the people that the tsar does not get angry at people, giving them a decision. The choice was made and the higher ranks and church ministers went after Ivan IV with a request to return to the throne: “Let the king execute his own Likhodites: in the belly and death his will; but the kingdom does not remain without a head! “The result was the creation of an oprichnina by the tsar, which would allow the tsar to hold power in his hands.Then Ivan Grozny took all these events very hard.When he left for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda by a strong willed person, he returned to Moscow in two months similar to old man, although he was 34.
The oprichniks were the main force of the king. It was a 6 thousand-strong army made up of the most devoted people to whom the king granted lands and in many ways freedom of action.The black riders were tied to the saddles of the head of dogs and a broom , symbolizing the tracing of traitors and the “sweeping away” of them from Russia.The core of the oprichnina was about 300 people forming a kind of brotherhood.The creation of the oprichnina always caused many disagreements among historians.On the one hand, they were people who committed arbitrariness, killing not only the perpetrators but also a lot of innocent people, on the other hand, it was these regiments that played the decisive role in repulsing the raids of Khan Diwlet-Girey, and also ruled the stern court of the Tsar over those who were unwanted, which in those grim times held back uncivilized Rus from the Troubles.
The disclosure of the Novgorod conspiracy led to the massacre of people.
In 1570 many of the ranks of Veliky Novgorod were accused of plotting, including the seal keeper Ivan Viskovaty and the treasurer Nikita Kurtsev. It was not the first wave of conspiracies. The tsar had no personal hatred of the city, just further events were politically necessary for him. As a result of the campaign against Novgorod, about half of the city’s population was killed. The executions were conducted publicly and very cruelly. People were skinned alive, cut off pieces, drowned in the river, put on a stake, etc. This cruel reprisal forced Rus to fear the tsar, which enabled him to hold power in his hands and carry out reforms, creating a powerful centralized state.
Ivan the Terrible had many wives, all of them did not die by their own death.
Ivan the Terrible had seven (according to some sources eight) wives, among whom the first lived the longest and was really loved by the king. Further marriages, it seems, either did not withstand the comparison with the first in the diseased brain, or were the result of a worsening mental state. The second marriage – with the daughter of the Kabardian prince Temryuk, Kucheny, who after the baptism took the name of Maria Temryukovna. She was young and beautiful, but had a very aggressive and cruel temper. Perhaps it was she who contributed to further damage to the character and morals of the king. In 1569, she fell ill and died, although according to some sources she was poisoned by boyars. The last fact does not confirm. The third wife, Marfa Sobakina, died a virgin about two weeks after the wedding. It was said that the queen was poisoned. However, modern studies of the poison in the remains have not revealed. Perhaps the poison was of plant origin. The fourth marriage was banned by the law of the church, but by a special decree the king was allowed to marry. A new wife was Anna Koltovskaya, who was an ardent opponent of oprichnina. Many executives of the oprichnina were executed or exiled at her. Perhaps, it was such interference in the affairs of the sovereign that led to the end of the marriage, which lasted less than a year (according to some sources, 3 years). The king sent his wife to the monastery under the name of Daria, where she died in 1627. The fifth marriage (according to Kostomarov’s research) with Maria Dolgorukaya lasted one day. Discovering that she was not a virgin, the king ordered her to drown her in a pond (this marriage usually does not appear in official sources).The sixth marriage with Anna Vasilchikova (1575) lasted several months, having fallen out of favor, she was exiled to a monastery. The seventh marriage – for love with the widow of the deacon Vasilisa Melentievna. Her husband was stabbed by order of Ivan the oprichnikom, so that there would be no obstacles to marriage. However, after she had looked too openly at the handsome man, the king sent her to a monastery, and ordered the poor man to be executed. And the last – the eighth marriage – with Maria Naga (1580). The wedding was played according to all laws, contrary to the permission of the church. It was her son, Tsarevich Dmitri, who died in Uglich. But in the sick brain the decision of a new marriage was already ripe, for strengthening of relations with the European countries. My wife was not needed and was sent to a monastery.
Ivan the Terrible killed his son.
Tsarevich Ivan, like his father, had more than one wife, and three. All his wives were disagreeable to his father. On Evdokia Saburova, the tsar married his son at the age of 18, after three years she was sent to a monastery, and her new bride, Praskeva Solovaya, was found, and soon the monastery was waiting for her. The third wife – Elena Sheremetyeva, most likely caused the discord between her son and father. According to some sources, Ivan IV beat her for an immodest dress, after which Elena had a miscarriage. Perhaps the king simply did not want this child, since her uncle had already been declared a traitor. The prince stood up for his wife and Ivan the Terrible in a fit of fury hit his son with a rod in the temple. The wound was serious, as a result of Prince Ivan died in 10 days. His death greatly shocked and horrified the king himself. He deeply regretted what he had done, and two years later he died.
Ivan the Terrible died of poisoning.
One of the mysteries of that time is the death of Ivan the Terrible himself. According to some sources, the tsar was strangled by Godunov and Belsky. This version is confirmed by the memories of foreigners and popular rumor. Modern research has only added new insights into the disclosure of the mystery. As it turned out, Ivan the terrible was sick with syphilis, the only remedy against which at that time was mercury. It was given in small doses to the sick. It is not known how much Ivan the Terrible could have taken for his life. Death caused by mercury is painful, and the dose causing such an outcome is very small – does not exceed 0.18 g.
Ivan the Terrible spread the borders of Russia.
Ivan IV expanded and united the Russian lands, created a centralized state, thanks to a clever policy and cruel terror. Having conquered Astrakhan, he pushed the southeastern borders of Russia to the Caspian Sea, conquered the Kazan lands and advanced the northern borders. They made the first, but unsuccessful attempt to reach the Baltic Sea. | <urn:uuid:c921ee53-2be5-4685-ad02-4d9e3a10a049> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://realityandmyths.com/ivan-the-terrible/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00285.warc.gz | en | 0.986864 | 3,548 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.3733752965927124,
0.01530567929148674,
0.3766363859176636,
0.05181530863046646,
-0.13714906573295593,
-0.29490989446640015,
-0.01337581966072321,
0.36299780011177063,
-0.14939838647842407,
0.18086747825145721,
0.00012644781963899732,
-0.1425975263118744,
0.3464483320713043,
0.1355179101... | 2 | Ivan IV the Terrible
(1530-1584 biennium) – the Grand Duke of Moscow and “All Russia”, the first Russian king of the Rurik dynasty. He had a steep and unbridled temperament, the main idea of government was the strengthening of the autocracy and the strengthening of the centralization of the state. He carried out many reforms and during the 40-year reign turned Rus from a backward, fragmented country into a great power. With the elected Rada he abolished the feeding, completed the labial, conducted the zemstvo and other reforms, established the oprichnina, abolished the peasant way out on the Yuryev day. Under him, Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1556) khanates were conquered, Ermak’s campaign to Siberia was organized (1581), the development of book printing in Russia was started. He tried to gain access to the Baltic Sea, but failed, having lost the Livonian War (1558-83). He died in a political and economic crisis, the exact cause of death has not been established so far.
Ivan the Terrible became king in three years.
Ivan IV was the eldest son of Grand Duke Vasily III Ioannovich from the second marriage with Princess Elena Vasilyevna Glinskaya. His birth was greeted with great national joy, since the king had no children for more than 20 years. His father died in 1533, when Ivan was only 3 years old. He inherited the throne of the Grand Duke of Moscow. For 5 years, while the boy grew up and received education, his mother Elena was the regent of the state. In 1583 the mother died. After her death, around the throne, a power struggle broke out between the Boyar clans: the Shuiskys, Belskys and Klinskys. From the correspondence of the tsar: “We, with my only-born brother, who was deceased Georgi in the Base, began to be brought up as strangers or the last poor, then we suffered hardships in clothes and food.” At age 13, he tried to take the first step for his own approval, ordering to take into custody Prince Andrey Shuisky, and then to execute him. January 8, 1547 16-year-old Ivan was married to the kingdom, becoming the first king of “all Russia”. Perhaps because his childhood was spent in such intolerable conditions of the struggle for power, he became a cruel tyrant.
Mother of Ivan IV Elena Vasilievna died a violent death.
According to some assumptions, it could have been poisoned by hostile boyars. Spectral analysis of Elena Glinskaya’s hair showed an increased content of mercury, which again suggests thoughts of deliberate killing. However, perhaps another assumption: in those distant times, mercury was often added to the cosmetics of women and, accordingly, applied to the face. Perhaps this is what led to the death.
Ivan the Terrible was a mentally unbalanced man of a weak mind.
If the first can be agreed, then the second – a weak mind – can not be recognized. From childhood, he had a fast and flexible mind, which, of course, was distorted in the process of cruel childhood conditions. In his youth he already possessed advanced mental abilities, he was able to pronounce passionate, persuasive people’s speeches, which his contemporaries also noted. He remarkably owned oratory art, perhaps, was the best in it in Russia in the XIV century. In addition, he had an excellent memory and theological erudition. His great mind is also evidenced by extensive correspondence (for example, with Prince Kurbsky and Queen Elizabeth of England). He even wrote music and text from one of the church services.
Ivan the Terrible was a deeply religious person and wanted to make “the third Rome” from Moscow.
Here it is necessary to say about the strong influence on him of the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church Macarius. It was his goal to turn Moscow into a “third Rome”: “Two Romes fell, a third stands, and the fourth does not happen.” He gave young Ivan the idea of crowning the kingdom. Even the meaning of the word “king” comes from the word “Caesar” (abbreviated version). As a result, during the coronation, Ivan was not only proclaimed the tsar of “all Russia”, but also the heir of the Roman emperor and the secular ruler of the entire Christian world.In addition, the king’s confessor, the priest Sylvester, who also had considerable influence on him, inspired the young king with fear of God. However, falling into disgrace, he was deprived of rank and exiled to Solovki.
The young king’s first marriage was successful and long.
The king married the boyar daughter of Anastasia some time after the coronation. He chose a bride from 1500 beauties of Russia. This woman was extremely soft character and gave the young king all that he was deprived from childhood: the warmth of the family hearth, the joy of life, paternity, family happiness. They lived together for 13 years, during which six children were born, only two boys remained alive: Ivan and Fyodor, three girls and Dmitry’s son died. Ivan temperament went to his father, Fedor was weak and weak-willed. But this does not mean that the king was faithful to his wife, rather the opposite. The death of his wife strongly influenced Ivan IV, the loss of an expensive man stirred up the worst features in him and aggravated the unbalanced and rabid nature.
Anastasia – the first wife of the king, was killed.
According to some sources, Anastasia Romanovna often became ill and died before she reached the age of 30. Modern studies of burials have discovered the presence of mercury in the hair of this woman (as well as the mother of the king). Therefore, the question of the cause of death is just as ambivalent as in the study of the death of Elena Vasilievna. Perhaps the beloved wife of Ivan IV was poisoned with mercury chloride – mercuric chloride HgCl2, which is very soluble in drinks and was known to medicine of that time.
Ivan the Terrible captured the Kazan Khanate not from the first campaign.
Actually, three campaigns were undertaken. The first one (1547-1548) did not actually take place, as troops and artillery crossed the fledgling ice of the Volga River, as a result, most of the army and guns just went under the ice. The speech had to be stopped. But the war with the Kazan Khanate was inevitable, since the outgoing threat was too real. The second campaign (1549-1550) was more successful and the Russian troops reached Kazan, but the city itself could not be taken. During this campaign, the fortress of Sviyazhsk was laid, which later became the main military base. It took only 4 weeks to build it. The third campaign (June-October 1552) was the last one, which brought to the king the glory of the conqueror. It involved about 150 thousand people and 150 guns. It should be noted that the Russian artillery of that time was considered one of the strongest. Guns cast under Ivan the Terrible were used in many battles of the 15th and 17th centuries. This campaign ended with the capture of Kazan. About 60,000 Christians were freed from the polonium (according to some sources up to 100 thousand). And in 1556 the Astrakhan Khanate was conquered.
After the capture of Kazan, Ivan the Terrible ordered to build a cathedral.
After each successive victory in the conquest of the khanates, another church was erected on the square in the name of that saint, on whose day the victory was celebrated. After the conquest of the Kazan and Astrakhan khanates Ivan IV ordered to build in Moscow the famous Pokrovsky Cathedral (St. Basil’s Cathedral). Architects Barma and Postnik Yakovlev (perhaps it was the same person) erected on the same foundation of 8 temples around the central – the ninth. This 65-meter cathedral was the tallest building in Moscow at that time, holding the championship until the end of the 16th century. Another priceless creation was made in honor of the capture of Kazan – the famous crown of Ivan IV, decorated with rubies, turquoise, pearls with a magnificent unrestricted topaz in the center.
Ivan IV forced the people to choose between the power of the boyars and the king.
Dual power and permanent palace intrigues destroyed the country – the tsar saw it, but did not take any measures at first. The death of the first wife made him more harsh. At the end of 1564, when he suspected boyar treason, he ordered the Kremlin’s gold coffers and holy icons to be loaded into a sleigh and set off for the whole family in the Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda.On January 3, 1565, two letters were written to him: the first to the highest ecclesiastical hierarchs, which indicated that the boyars’ conspiracy does not give him the opportunity to lead the country, the second – to the people that the tsar does not get angry at people, giving them a decision. The choice was made and the higher ranks and church ministers went after Ivan IV with a request to return to the throne: “Let the king execute his own Likhodites: in the belly and death his will; but the kingdom does not remain without a head! “The result was the creation of an oprichnina by the tsar, which would allow the tsar to hold power in his hands.Then Ivan Grozny took all these events very hard.When he left for Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda by a strong willed person, he returned to Moscow in two months similar to old man, although he was 34.
The oprichniks were the main force of the king. It was a 6 thousand-strong army made up of the most devoted people to whom the king granted lands and in many ways freedom of action.The black riders were tied to the saddles of the head of dogs and a broom , symbolizing the tracing of traitors and the “sweeping away” of them from Russia.The core of the oprichnina was about 300 people forming a kind of brotherhood.The creation of the oprichnina always caused many disagreements among historians.On the one hand, they were people who committed arbitrariness, killing not only the perpetrators but also a lot of innocent people, on the other hand, it was these regiments that played the decisive role in repulsing the raids of Khan Diwlet-Girey, and also ruled the stern court of the Tsar over those who were unwanted, which in those grim times held back uncivilized Rus from the Troubles.
The disclosure of the Novgorod conspiracy led to the massacre of people.
In 1570 many of the ranks of Veliky Novgorod were accused of plotting, including the seal keeper Ivan Viskovaty and the treasurer Nikita Kurtsev. It was not the first wave of conspiracies. The tsar had no personal hatred of the city, just further events were politically necessary for him. As a result of the campaign against Novgorod, about half of the city’s population was killed. The executions were conducted publicly and very cruelly. People were skinned alive, cut off pieces, drowned in the river, put on a stake, etc. This cruel reprisal forced Rus to fear the tsar, which enabled him to hold power in his hands and carry out reforms, creating a powerful centralized state.
Ivan the Terrible had many wives, all of them did not die by their own death.
Ivan the Terrible had seven (according to some sources eight) wives, among whom the first lived the longest and was really loved by the king. Further marriages, it seems, either did not withstand the comparison with the first in the diseased brain, or were the result of a worsening mental state. The second marriage – with the daughter of the Kabardian prince Temryuk, Kucheny, who after the baptism took the name of Maria Temryukovna. She was young and beautiful, but had a very aggressive and cruel temper. Perhaps it was she who contributed to further damage to the character and morals of the king. In 1569, she fell ill and died, although according to some sources she was poisoned by boyars. The last fact does not confirm. The third wife, Marfa Sobakina, died a virgin about two weeks after the wedding. It was said that the queen was poisoned. However, modern studies of the poison in the remains have not revealed. Perhaps the poison was of plant origin. The fourth marriage was banned by the law of the church, but by a special decree the king was allowed to marry. A new wife was Anna Koltovskaya, who was an ardent opponent of oprichnina. Many executives of the oprichnina were executed or exiled at her. Perhaps, it was such interference in the affairs of the sovereign that led to the end of the marriage, which lasted less than a year (according to some sources, 3 years). The king sent his wife to the monastery under the name of Daria, where she died in 1627. The fifth marriage (according to Kostomarov’s research) with Maria Dolgorukaya lasted one day. Discovering that she was not a virgin, the king ordered her to drown her in a pond (this marriage usually does not appear in official sources).The sixth marriage with Anna Vasilchikova (1575) lasted several months, having fallen out of favor, she was exiled to a monastery. The seventh marriage – for love with the widow of the deacon Vasilisa Melentievna. Her husband was stabbed by order of Ivan the oprichnikom, so that there would be no obstacles to marriage. However, after she had looked too openly at the handsome man, the king sent her to a monastery, and ordered the poor man to be executed. And the last – the eighth marriage – with Maria Naga (1580). The wedding was played according to all laws, contrary to the permission of the church. It was her son, Tsarevich Dmitri, who died in Uglich. But in the sick brain the decision of a new marriage was already ripe, for strengthening of relations with the European countries. My wife was not needed and was sent to a monastery.
Ivan the Terrible killed his son.
Tsarevich Ivan, like his father, had more than one wife, and three. All his wives were disagreeable to his father. On Evdokia Saburova, the tsar married his son at the age of 18, after three years she was sent to a monastery, and her new bride, Praskeva Solovaya, was found, and soon the monastery was waiting for her. The third wife – Elena Sheremetyeva, most likely caused the discord between her son and father. According to some sources, Ivan IV beat her for an immodest dress, after which Elena had a miscarriage. Perhaps the king simply did not want this child, since her uncle had already been declared a traitor. The prince stood up for his wife and Ivan the Terrible in a fit of fury hit his son with a rod in the temple. The wound was serious, as a result of Prince Ivan died in 10 days. His death greatly shocked and horrified the king himself. He deeply regretted what he had done, and two years later he died.
Ivan the Terrible died of poisoning.
One of the mysteries of that time is the death of Ivan the Terrible himself. According to some sources, the tsar was strangled by Godunov and Belsky. This version is confirmed by the memories of foreigners and popular rumor. Modern research has only added new insights into the disclosure of the mystery. As it turned out, Ivan the terrible was sick with syphilis, the only remedy against which at that time was mercury. It was given in small doses to the sick. It is not known how much Ivan the Terrible could have taken for his life. Death caused by mercury is painful, and the dose causing such an outcome is very small – does not exceed 0.18 g.
Ivan the Terrible spread the borders of Russia.
Ivan IV expanded and united the Russian lands, created a centralized state, thanks to a clever policy and cruel terror. Having conquered Astrakhan, he pushed the southeastern borders of Russia to the Caspian Sea, conquered the Kazan lands and advanced the northern borders. They made the first, but unsuccessful attempt to reach the Baltic Sea. | 3,580 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to email@example.com You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.
I would like to know how long garden snails would live if they were not eaten by birds (or other predators)? – Alice, age 6, Canberra.
That’s a really good question! There have been reports of at least one snail living as many as 14 years in captivity. His name was George and he lived in Hawaii, in the United States.
Very few people have ever had the patience to study how long garden snails live in the wild. However, it might be longer than we might at first think – studies showed that snails in gardens in California needed to be between two and four years old before they were old enough to have babies. Many of these Californian garden snails, which were studied for almost five years, were therefore over six years old at least – older than you, Alice! It seems that rats and small mammals were the main predators of these snails.
Counting snail shell rings
There is a snail very like the garden snail that is called the Roman or Apple snail – it is the one that some people like to eat.
A study of a population of these snails in England was able to work out how old these snails are. That’s because, as they get older, you can count growth rings at the edge of their shell.
Some of the snails were at least six years old and probably more like eight or nine. The older snails had very thick shells and were often out and about. The scientists thought this might be because as the snails got older and bigger, fewer birds and other predators could crack their thick shells, and so they felt safe enough not hide away all the time.
So, it seems that if you are a snail that can survive long enough to get big then you might stand a good chance of getting even older – maybe 15 years old. It depends on what type of snail you are.
Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best. | <urn:uuid:0366b9cc-0b95-4fcc-a93e-4a653e4a8dd1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-long-would-garden-snails-live-if-they-were-not-eaten-by-another-animal-114746 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00234.warc.gz | en | 0.990493 | 527 | 3.375 | 3 | [
0.24048128724098206,
-0.32120463252067566,
0.1303408443927765,
-0.28533560037612915,
-0.12888330221176147,
0.2558465301990509,
0.04258420690894127,
-0.2569197714328766,
-0.4333266317844391,
0.2067556381225586,
0.40227335691452026,
-0.27841711044311523,
-0.022137170657515526,
0.470176637172... | 2 | Curious Kids is a series for children. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to email@example.com You might also like the podcast Imagine This, a co-production between ABC KIDS listen and The Conversation, based on Curious Kids.
I would like to know how long garden snails would live if they were not eaten by birds (or other predators)? – Alice, age 6, Canberra.
That’s a really good question! There have been reports of at least one snail living as many as 14 years in captivity. His name was George and he lived in Hawaii, in the United States.
Very few people have ever had the patience to study how long garden snails live in the wild. However, it might be longer than we might at first think – studies showed that snails in gardens in California needed to be between two and four years old before they were old enough to have babies. Many of these Californian garden snails, which were studied for almost five years, were therefore over six years old at least – older than you, Alice! It seems that rats and small mammals were the main predators of these snails.
Counting snail shell rings
There is a snail very like the garden snail that is called the Roman or Apple snail – it is the one that some people like to eat.
A study of a population of these snails in England was able to work out how old these snails are. That’s because, as they get older, you can count growth rings at the edge of their shell.
Some of the snails were at least six years old and probably more like eight or nine. The older snails had very thick shells and were often out and about. The scientists thought this might be because as the snails got older and bigger, fewer birds and other predators could crack their thick shells, and so they felt safe enough not hide away all the time.
So, it seems that if you are a snail that can survive long enough to get big then you might stand a good chance of getting even older – maybe 15 years old. It depends on what type of snail you are.
Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please tell us your name, age and which city you live in. We won’t be able to answer every question but we will do our best. | 506 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The municipality of Carthage decided to build a memorial to Hannibal Barca, one of the greatest military commanders of all time and a universal hero of Tunisian history.
Hannibal left a deep mark on people’s imaginations by achieving an incredible feat: the crossing of the Alps with an army of fifty thousands infantrymen, five thousand horsemen and thirty-seven elephants. This feat inspired great painters like Goya or William Turner.
But he was also admired for his skills as a military strategist. His techniques were imitated by the Romans, then studied for centuries in military schools. Napoleon was a great admirer of Hannibal.
Hannibal was an unfortunate hero who nearly changed the course of history by winning multiple victories against the Roman republic. But the Romans won the final victory. Fifty years later, they destroyed the Carthaginian civilization, one of the most brilliant of Antiquity.
Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar Barca, was a general during the first war between Rome and Carthage. He then led an army tasked with consolidating and expanding Carthaginian territory in Spain.
Hannibal, born in Carthage in 247 BC, took the lead of this army after his father and his brother-in-law Hasdrubal. It was from Spain that he launched his gigantic expedition that took him to the gates of Rome.
Recalled from Italy by Carthage, he could not prevent the Roman invasion. After his defeat in Zama, he had to go into exile in Syria. He eventually committed suicide (in 181 or 183 BC) in order to not fall into his enemy’s hands.
Hannibal was hated by the Romans; he was therefore intensely slandered. It was said that he was cruel and perfidious. In reality, he could be magnanimous. He was a charismatic leader and soldiers from the most diverse peoples joined him: Berbers, Spaniards, Gauls, Italians, Greeks… Finally, Hannibal remains a symbol of tenacity and voluntarism. He was credited with these famous words:
“I shall either find a way or make one”
(Aut inveniam viam aut faciam).
More about Carthage, a World Heritage Site | <urn:uuid:54f7d7e6-655f-405a-bba8-7f674c5a6f04> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.tunisiatourism.info/en/articles/un-monument-pour-hannibal | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00122.warc.gz | en | 0.981143 | 464 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.21024039387702942,
0.7282848358154297,
0.597201943397522,
0.1891569048166275,
-0.939664363861084,
-0.5366440415382385,
0.3020043671131134,
0.3625870645046234,
-0.02931213565170765,
-0.3023500144481659,
0.02642594464123249,
-0.8699337840080261,
0.13752587139606476,
0.5071948766708374,
... | 2 | The municipality of Carthage decided to build a memorial to Hannibal Barca, one of the greatest military commanders of all time and a universal hero of Tunisian history.
Hannibal left a deep mark on people’s imaginations by achieving an incredible feat: the crossing of the Alps with an army of fifty thousands infantrymen, five thousand horsemen and thirty-seven elephants. This feat inspired great painters like Goya or William Turner.
But he was also admired for his skills as a military strategist. His techniques were imitated by the Romans, then studied for centuries in military schools. Napoleon was a great admirer of Hannibal.
Hannibal was an unfortunate hero who nearly changed the course of history by winning multiple victories against the Roman republic. But the Romans won the final victory. Fifty years later, they destroyed the Carthaginian civilization, one of the most brilliant of Antiquity.
Hannibal’s father, Hamilcar Barca, was a general during the first war between Rome and Carthage. He then led an army tasked with consolidating and expanding Carthaginian territory in Spain.
Hannibal, born in Carthage in 247 BC, took the lead of this army after his father and his brother-in-law Hasdrubal. It was from Spain that he launched his gigantic expedition that took him to the gates of Rome.
Recalled from Italy by Carthage, he could not prevent the Roman invasion. After his defeat in Zama, he had to go into exile in Syria. He eventually committed suicide (in 181 or 183 BC) in order to not fall into his enemy’s hands.
Hannibal was hated by the Romans; he was therefore intensely slandered. It was said that he was cruel and perfidious. In reality, he could be magnanimous. He was a charismatic leader and soldiers from the most diverse peoples joined him: Berbers, Spaniards, Gauls, Italians, Greeks… Finally, Hannibal remains a symbol of tenacity and voluntarism. He was credited with these famous words:
“I shall either find a way or make one”
(Aut inveniam viam aut faciam).
More about Carthage, a World Heritage Site | 461 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Greek and Roman Rule
When the Egyptian history came to an end, it was 332 B.C. This was a period of time where the Greeks went to war with the Egyptians and they won.
It was during this time that the Greeks made their own dynasty and it was called the Ptolemaic Dynasty.
This dynasty lasted for almost 300 years.
It wasn’t until 30 B.C. that the Romans went to war with the Greeks and they took over the lands.
They ruled for over 600 years. Their rule lasted until 640 A.D.
Alexander the Great
During the reign of the Greeks, Alexander the Great became their leader. He went to war and conquered Egypt and much of the Middle East including India.
The Egyptians decided that Alexander should be the next pharaoh of Egypt and be made the capital Alexandria which was located on the boarder of Egypt.
When he died, Alexander the Great divided his kingdom to his generals and this is when his general, Ptolemy I Soter became the next pharaoh of Egypt.
He is the one who created the Ptolemaic Dynasty.
The Greek dynasty, the Ptolemaic Dynasty was the last dynasty that was seen by the Egyptians.
This dynasty was ruled by Ptolemy I and during this time, everything changed for the Egyptians.
During the Ptolemaic Dynasty, religion changed.
Even though some of the Egyptian religious ideas stayed the same, many of the Greek ideas begin to play a role and change the ways of the Egyptians.
It was during the Ptolemaic Dynasty that many buildings and temples were built.
They were built in the Egyptian style and the land expanded to Libya, Cyprus, Palestine, Kush and past the Mediterranean Sea.
City of Alexandria
One of the biggest and most wealthy cities was Alexandria.
This was a city that was important because it was a place of trade for the Greeks.
This area was where the Greeks were able to trade with Asia, Europe and Africa.
Alexandria was a place where people could go and learn, and it was a place that had the biggest library in the world.
There were thousands of books and documents in the Alexandrian library.
Fall of the Ptolemaic Dynasty
After years of ruling, Ptolemy III died, and this caused the Ptolemaic Dynasty to start to get weak.
The government had all kinds of things going on and people were against the government and secretly fought against it.
The Roman Empire was becoming stronger and they began to take over parts of the world including parts of the Mediterranean.
Pharaoh Cleopatra VII, in 31 B.C. decided that it would be best if she would join forces with the Roman general called Mark Antony.
They went to war against another Roman, a leader named Octavian.
They fought in a battle called the Battle of Actium and this is where Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII were defeated and then a year later, Octavian also fought against Alexandria and beat the Egyptian army.
Egypt at this point in 30 B.C. became part of the Roman rule.
Their life changed and the Roman’s had a different culture and life than the Egyptians did.
Rome was a place that was a trade place and was one of the most important areas during the time.
Since this place was so important, Egypt helped to bring a lot of wealth to the Romans.
In the 4th century though, things changed, and Rome decided to split.
This is when Egypt became part of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was called Byzantium.
During the 7th Century, Egypt was always being attacked.
These attacks mostly happened in the east. In 616, they were attacked by the Sassanids and they were defeated. Then in 641, they were defeated again by the Arabs.
Egypt became under the rule of the Arabs until the Middle Ages.
More Facts About Greek and Roman Rule:
- One of the Seven Wonders of the World is found in Alexandria. It was a lighthouse.
- Egypt was called “Aegyptus” by the Romans.
- Octavian changed his name to Augustus when he became the first Emperor of Rome.
- Cleopatra VII was the last pharaoh that ever ruled in Egypt.
- Cleopatra VII died by killing herself when Octavian took control of Alexandria.
- Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII had a son together and his name was Caesarion.
- Caesarion also was called Ptolemy XV.
What Did You Learn?
- When did the Egyptians lose their total power? The Egyptians lost total power in 332 B.C.
- Who were the first people to beat the Egyptians? The Greeks were the first people to beat the Egyptians.
- Who beat the Greeks? The Romans beat the Greeks.
- What was the dynasty called that the Greeks formed? The Greeks formed the Ptolemaic Dynasty.
- Who was the ruler that was Greek but was called the pharaoh of Egypt? Alexander the Great was the Greek that was called the pharaoh of Egypt.
- What was an important city that was a trade area with Asia, Europe and Africa? Alexandria was a trade area and an important city to many. | <urn:uuid:422ba791-f98d-4604-8199-e4bfb5c2a5f5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historyforkids.net/greek-and-roman-rule.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00019.warc.gz | en | 0.989676 | 1,116 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
0.01695159450173378,
0.7384734153747559,
0.5447916984558105,
-0.15342643857002258,
-0.7974832057952881,
-0.2471821904182434,
0.12589730322360992,
0.4486103355884552,
-0.014866018667817116,
0.12013889849185944,
-0.019766459241509438,
-0.2325872778892517,
-0.054912030696868896,
0.11298520863... | 14 | Greek and Roman Rule
When the Egyptian history came to an end, it was 332 B.C. This was a period of time where the Greeks went to war with the Egyptians and they won.
It was during this time that the Greeks made their own dynasty and it was called the Ptolemaic Dynasty.
This dynasty lasted for almost 300 years.
It wasn’t until 30 B.C. that the Romans went to war with the Greeks and they took over the lands.
They ruled for over 600 years. Their rule lasted until 640 A.D.
Alexander the Great
During the reign of the Greeks, Alexander the Great became their leader. He went to war and conquered Egypt and much of the Middle East including India.
The Egyptians decided that Alexander should be the next pharaoh of Egypt and be made the capital Alexandria which was located on the boarder of Egypt.
When he died, Alexander the Great divided his kingdom to his generals and this is when his general, Ptolemy I Soter became the next pharaoh of Egypt.
He is the one who created the Ptolemaic Dynasty.
The Greek dynasty, the Ptolemaic Dynasty was the last dynasty that was seen by the Egyptians.
This dynasty was ruled by Ptolemy I and during this time, everything changed for the Egyptians.
During the Ptolemaic Dynasty, religion changed.
Even though some of the Egyptian religious ideas stayed the same, many of the Greek ideas begin to play a role and change the ways of the Egyptians.
It was during the Ptolemaic Dynasty that many buildings and temples were built.
They were built in the Egyptian style and the land expanded to Libya, Cyprus, Palestine, Kush and past the Mediterranean Sea.
City of Alexandria
One of the biggest and most wealthy cities was Alexandria.
This was a city that was important because it was a place of trade for the Greeks.
This area was where the Greeks were able to trade with Asia, Europe and Africa.
Alexandria was a place where people could go and learn, and it was a place that had the biggest library in the world.
There were thousands of books and documents in the Alexandrian library.
Fall of the Ptolemaic Dynasty
After years of ruling, Ptolemy III died, and this caused the Ptolemaic Dynasty to start to get weak.
The government had all kinds of things going on and people were against the government and secretly fought against it.
The Roman Empire was becoming stronger and they began to take over parts of the world including parts of the Mediterranean.
Pharaoh Cleopatra VII, in 31 B.C. decided that it would be best if she would join forces with the Roman general called Mark Antony.
They went to war against another Roman, a leader named Octavian.
They fought in a battle called the Battle of Actium and this is where Mark Antony and Cleopatra VII were defeated and then a year later, Octavian also fought against Alexandria and beat the Egyptian army.
Egypt at this point in 30 B.C. became part of the Roman rule.
Their life changed and the Roman’s had a different culture and life than the Egyptians did.
Rome was a place that was a trade place and was one of the most important areas during the time.
Since this place was so important, Egypt helped to bring a lot of wealth to the Romans.
In the 4th century though, things changed, and Rome decided to split.
This is when Egypt became part of the Eastern Roman Empire. The Eastern Roman Empire was called Byzantium.
During the 7th Century, Egypt was always being attacked.
These attacks mostly happened in the east. In 616, they were attacked by the Sassanids and they were defeated. Then in 641, they were defeated again by the Arabs.
Egypt became under the rule of the Arabs until the Middle Ages.
More Facts About Greek and Roman Rule:
- One of the Seven Wonders of the World is found in Alexandria. It was a lighthouse.
- Egypt was called “Aegyptus” by the Romans.
- Octavian changed his name to Augustus when he became the first Emperor of Rome.
- Cleopatra VII was the last pharaoh that ever ruled in Egypt.
- Cleopatra VII died by killing herself when Octavian took control of Alexandria.
- Julius Caesar and Cleopatra VII had a son together and his name was Caesarion.
- Caesarion also was called Ptolemy XV.
What Did You Learn?
- When did the Egyptians lose their total power? The Egyptians lost total power in 332 B.C.
- Who were the first people to beat the Egyptians? The Greeks were the first people to beat the Egyptians.
- Who beat the Greeks? The Romans beat the Greeks.
- What was the dynasty called that the Greeks formed? The Greeks formed the Ptolemaic Dynasty.
- Who was the ruler that was Greek but was called the pharaoh of Egypt? Alexander the Great was the Greek that was called the pharaoh of Egypt.
- What was an important city that was a trade area with Asia, Europe and Africa? Alexandria was a trade area and an important city to many. | 1,079 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Napoleon is known to have had a potent influence on the modern day world. He brought liberal improvements to the regions that he captured.He left a legacy by implementing essential liberal strategies in France and across Europe. The Napoleonic code has dramatically influenced the legal structures of not less than 70 nations around the world. Many people will, however, remember him by the myth about his height. It is, therefore, useful to know that Napoleon was not as short as most people thought he was. Measuring 5 foot 7 inches (according to modern measurement) was even taller than an average French man.
Early Life and Career
Bonaparte was born the same year that the Republic of Genoa changed Corsica to France. Napoleon's father was an attorney when Bonaparte turned nine years old. He moved to the French mainland and enrolled Napoleon at a religious school. Later, Napoleon transferred with a scholarship, and he joined an army academy. In this institution, it is alleged that Napoleon was often bullied due to his accent and mostly due to his height. Nevertheless, it did not stop him from achieving his goal since, after his graduation in September 1785, he joined the French revolution and led several wars. Napoleon used up the initial years of the rebellion in Corsica, rebelling against the radicals and the Corsican nationalists. Napoleon reinforced the Jacobin movement, and he was given authority over a battalion of unpaid workers. In the year 1795, Napoleon was allocated to the Army of the west which involved itself in a civil war commonly known as the Vendée. He raised through ranks of the military to be one the greatest commanders. He defeated the royalist, and this made him extra famous. He was then promoted to become the overall commandant of the army of the interior and was given the power of the Italian army.
By the time of his death, Napoleon's height was estimated to be around 5 foot 2 inches according to the French measurements of that time. There is a lot of discrepancy in the historical description of Napoleon's height due to the difference in the measurement standards between the English and French-speaking worlds. The French inch was, in fact, longer than the British inch. As a result, any height measured in French measurements seemed short. It is thus possible that Napoleon's height was actually closer to 5 foot 7 inches. Most likely, Napoleon was of average height for French men at the time, but was deemed as short compared to other military men who held high-powered positions.
Moreover, due to the constant rivalry that existed between British and French people, it is believed that the British described Napoleon Bonaparte as extremely short. He was considered to be tiny because he was always surrounded by tall and huge bodyguards. He was referred to as "the little corporal" as translated from the French "Le Petit Caporal." The British made cartons mocking Napoleon's height since there were no photography or television to correct this impression. Consequently, the British took it as a fact. The British and other foes of Napoleon spread the rumor that he was extremely short as a way of undermining him.
How Tall Was Napoleon Bonaparte?
Napoleon was not as short as most people thought he was. Measuring 5 foot 7 inches, he was actually taller than an average French man.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | <urn:uuid:5101daec-e9f0-4d3d-b56c-f09d7816a323> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/how-tall-was-napoleon-bonaparte.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00201.warc.gz | en | 0.986963 | 702 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.39717477560043335,
0.5936899185180664,
0.5650635361671448,
-0.28159964084625244,
-0.2809796929359436,
-0.21851035952568054,
0.07871702313423157,
0.5419162511825562,
0.17600414156913757,
-0.0027422935236245394,
0.4334169030189514,
-0.32432547211647034,
0.18530714511871338,
0.441197812557... | 2 | Napoleon is known to have had a potent influence on the modern day world. He brought liberal improvements to the regions that he captured.He left a legacy by implementing essential liberal strategies in France and across Europe. The Napoleonic code has dramatically influenced the legal structures of not less than 70 nations around the world. Many people will, however, remember him by the myth about his height. It is, therefore, useful to know that Napoleon was not as short as most people thought he was. Measuring 5 foot 7 inches (according to modern measurement) was even taller than an average French man.
Early Life and Career
Bonaparte was born the same year that the Republic of Genoa changed Corsica to France. Napoleon's father was an attorney when Bonaparte turned nine years old. He moved to the French mainland and enrolled Napoleon at a religious school. Later, Napoleon transferred with a scholarship, and he joined an army academy. In this institution, it is alleged that Napoleon was often bullied due to his accent and mostly due to his height. Nevertheless, it did not stop him from achieving his goal since, after his graduation in September 1785, he joined the French revolution and led several wars. Napoleon used up the initial years of the rebellion in Corsica, rebelling against the radicals and the Corsican nationalists. Napoleon reinforced the Jacobin movement, and he was given authority over a battalion of unpaid workers. In the year 1795, Napoleon was allocated to the Army of the west which involved itself in a civil war commonly known as the Vendée. He raised through ranks of the military to be one the greatest commanders. He defeated the royalist, and this made him extra famous. He was then promoted to become the overall commandant of the army of the interior and was given the power of the Italian army.
By the time of his death, Napoleon's height was estimated to be around 5 foot 2 inches according to the French measurements of that time. There is a lot of discrepancy in the historical description of Napoleon's height due to the difference in the measurement standards between the English and French-speaking worlds. The French inch was, in fact, longer than the British inch. As a result, any height measured in French measurements seemed short. It is thus possible that Napoleon's height was actually closer to 5 foot 7 inches. Most likely, Napoleon was of average height for French men at the time, but was deemed as short compared to other military men who held high-powered positions.
Moreover, due to the constant rivalry that existed between British and French people, it is believed that the British described Napoleon Bonaparte as extremely short. He was considered to be tiny because he was always surrounded by tall and huge bodyguards. He was referred to as "the little corporal" as translated from the French "Le Petit Caporal." The British made cartons mocking Napoleon's height since there were no photography or television to correct this impression. Consequently, the British took it as a fact. The British and other foes of Napoleon spread the rumor that he was extremely short as a way of undermining him.
How Tall Was Napoleon Bonaparte?
Napoleon was not as short as most people thought he was. Measuring 5 foot 7 inches, he was actually taller than an average French man.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | 708 | ENGLISH | 1 |
By Jennifer Batt
In 1758, Samuel Johnson noted that the itch of scribbling had seized the nation. 'The rage of writing has seized the old and young' across all segments of society, he observed, so that now 'the cook warbles her lyrics in the kitchen, and the thrasher vociferates his heroics in the barn.' Johnson's observation drew attention to an important development in the eighteenth century literary world: the emergence of the labouring class writer. Over the course of the century increasing numbers of agricultural labourers, household servants, bricklayers, shoemakers, milkmaids, soldiers and sailors not only tool up writing, but also published their work, and, in some cases, made a significant impact on contemporary literary culture. Would-be authors from labouring-class backgrounds faced a particular set of challenges as they attempted to fashion themselves as writers, ranging from accessing education and books, juggling writing with work, managing their literary ambitions, and dealing with success or failure.
The first challenge faced by labouring-class writers was acquiring a suitable education. Taught to read and write by their parents or at a local school, their formal education was often brought to an abrupt end at a young age. James Woodhouse, the shoemaker-poet, for example, was withdrawn from his school at the age of seven, while many others were sent to work by their early teens. Even when schooling lasted until the teenage years, these writers then faced the challenge of acquiring 'literary' books, from which they could start to explore what poetry was, what it might do, and how it was to be written. Books came to these writers in a haphazard, piecemeal manner, and often depended on luck and good connections. Stephen Duck, the agricultural labourer, was lucky in having a good friend who had worked in London and returned with a set of classic books, including Milton's Paradise Lost, The Spectator, and Edward Bysshe's Art of English Poetry. Other promising talents were spotted by local benefactors who opened up their libraries: the servant Mary Leapor was given access to the library at Weston Hall by Susanna Jennens, while James Woodhouse had similar assistance from William Shenstone at Leasowes. Bit by bit, these individuals made small forays into the world of literature, and what they found there inspired them to try their own hand at writing.
The second challenge facing labouring-class poets was how to combine their working lives with their writing. The biographies of many of these poets contain anecdotes relating their success, or failure, in juggling these competing demands. Some writers apparently combined the two in an exemplary fashion: a contemporary biography of Stephen Duck noted how he worked extra hard in the fields, sometimes for overtime payments with which he could buy books, and at other times, so he could snatch a few minutes after completing his allotted tasks to sit down and read. A less flattering anecdote circulated about Mary Leapor, who reportedly neglected her work in the kitchen, scorching the meat that she should have been turning when she was distracted by writing verse.
While juggling work and writing was a challenge, it also provided an opportunity, giving these writers a valuable perspective from which to write. Previous literary depictions of labour had often been sanitized or idealised, but these writers had actually experienced the world of work. Stephen Duck's ‘The Thresher's Labour’, which presented an account of a year in the life of an agricultural labourer, began a vogue for poems which focused on their author's working life. Robert Tatersal depicted life as a bricklayer in 'The Bricklayer's Labours' while Mary Collier wrote about the daily labours of working wives and mothers in 'The Woman's Labour'. Life in service was illustrated by Robert Dodsley's 'Servitude' and 'The Footman. An Epistle', and by Mary Leapor in 'Crumble Hall'. William Falconer, a sailor, depicted life onboard ship in The Shipwreck. Yet though such poems offer a valuable insight into eighteenth century life, it must be remembered that they are literary works and not straightforward documentary fact. Labouring-class writers re-imagined the world in which they lived, sometimes radically, and their verse does not always reflect their immediate circumstances. Mary Collier wrote about the challenges of being a working wife and mother despite neither marrying nor having children. And though Robert Bloomfield, the author of the popular poem The Farmer's Boy, had worked on a farm as a youth, when he wrote the poem he was not an agricultural labourer but rather a cobbler by trade.
The third challenge faced by these writers was how juggle their status as labouring-class writers with their literary ambitions. Many of these poets were not simply content to write about their working life - they also wanted to participate in mainstream literary culture. Consequently they wrote verse in numerous genres and on numerous themes, ranging from biblical paraphrases to topical satire. Some wrote plays: Robert Dodsley had success in the 1730s with The Toy Shop and The King and the Miller of Mansfield, the bricklayer Henry Jones' play The Earl of Essex was well received in the 1750s, while the former milkwoman Ann Yearsley's Earl Goodwin was produced in Bath and Bristol in the 1790s. Yearsley also wrote a novel, The Royal Captives. William Falconer, meanwhile, channelled his knowledge of seamanship and his interest in language into The Universal Dictionary of the Marine.
Success (and failure)
The fourth challenge for these writers was how to cope with success when - or if - it came. These writers typically began their careers by achieving local notoriety and attracting the attention of patrons, who could help - or hinder - their development. Stephen Duck was the most lucky of them all, winning the patronage of Queen Caroline and leaving his labouring life behind to become a clergyman. Rumours of his subsequent depression and eventual suicide are probably exaggerated. Robert Dodsley too, had spectacular good fortune: his early writings won him the patronage of the poet Alexander Pope. With Pope's aid, Dodsley set up business as a bookseller and soon became the most important literary bookseller in London. On a more modest scale, patronage enabled William Falconer to leave life as a sailor behind, placing him in a job which gave him more time for his literary interests.
Other poets were less fortunate. After the publication of a collection of her verse, Ann Yearsley's relationship with her patron Hannah More deteriorated catastrophically. The two women disagreed over what should happen to the proceeds from the book, and the result was a public and very bitter quarrel. Mary Leapor was much more fortunate in finding local patrons who nurtured her talent and encouraged her to publish her work. However, her premature death at the age of just 24 meant that she never saw any of her works in print, nor received the acclaim that would posthumously come her way. Mary Collier, meanwhile, did live to see her poetry in print, but she was later to lament that it brought her little reward, complaining 'I lost nothing, neither did I gain much, others [having] run away with the profit.’
Works by a range of labouring-class writers can be found on this site as ebooks, and to explore the subject further, check out [Labouring-Class Poets Online], a database of almost 2000 writers from labouring-class backgrounds who were active in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Note usage restrictions: "Information from this database may be freely downloaded and used for teaching and research purposes, but may not be published in any form without the written permission of the copyright holders.") | <urn:uuid:5db4f165-d9d7-45c8-b153-bd9e5fada9f2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://writersinspire.org/content/eighteenth-century-labouring-class-writing | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00030.warc.gz | en | 0.981941 | 1,585 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.1803780049085617,
0.15952318906784058,
0.4491128921508789,
0.08765099197626114,
-0.14388003945350647,
0.07307402789592743,
-0.4015299677848816,
0.0006643809610977769,
-0.358406662940979,
-0.3740501403808594,
-0.14358024299144745,
0.2766180634498596,
0.009834268130362034,
0.2241626083850... | 22 | By Jennifer Batt
In 1758, Samuel Johnson noted that the itch of scribbling had seized the nation. 'The rage of writing has seized the old and young' across all segments of society, he observed, so that now 'the cook warbles her lyrics in the kitchen, and the thrasher vociferates his heroics in the barn.' Johnson's observation drew attention to an important development in the eighteenth century literary world: the emergence of the labouring class writer. Over the course of the century increasing numbers of agricultural labourers, household servants, bricklayers, shoemakers, milkmaids, soldiers and sailors not only tool up writing, but also published their work, and, in some cases, made a significant impact on contemporary literary culture. Would-be authors from labouring-class backgrounds faced a particular set of challenges as they attempted to fashion themselves as writers, ranging from accessing education and books, juggling writing with work, managing their literary ambitions, and dealing with success or failure.
The first challenge faced by labouring-class writers was acquiring a suitable education. Taught to read and write by their parents or at a local school, their formal education was often brought to an abrupt end at a young age. James Woodhouse, the shoemaker-poet, for example, was withdrawn from his school at the age of seven, while many others were sent to work by their early teens. Even when schooling lasted until the teenage years, these writers then faced the challenge of acquiring 'literary' books, from which they could start to explore what poetry was, what it might do, and how it was to be written. Books came to these writers in a haphazard, piecemeal manner, and often depended on luck and good connections. Stephen Duck, the agricultural labourer, was lucky in having a good friend who had worked in London and returned with a set of classic books, including Milton's Paradise Lost, The Spectator, and Edward Bysshe's Art of English Poetry. Other promising talents were spotted by local benefactors who opened up their libraries: the servant Mary Leapor was given access to the library at Weston Hall by Susanna Jennens, while James Woodhouse had similar assistance from William Shenstone at Leasowes. Bit by bit, these individuals made small forays into the world of literature, and what they found there inspired them to try their own hand at writing.
The second challenge facing labouring-class poets was how to combine their working lives with their writing. The biographies of many of these poets contain anecdotes relating their success, or failure, in juggling these competing demands. Some writers apparently combined the two in an exemplary fashion: a contemporary biography of Stephen Duck noted how he worked extra hard in the fields, sometimes for overtime payments with which he could buy books, and at other times, so he could snatch a few minutes after completing his allotted tasks to sit down and read. A less flattering anecdote circulated about Mary Leapor, who reportedly neglected her work in the kitchen, scorching the meat that she should have been turning when she was distracted by writing verse.
While juggling work and writing was a challenge, it also provided an opportunity, giving these writers a valuable perspective from which to write. Previous literary depictions of labour had often been sanitized or idealised, but these writers had actually experienced the world of work. Stephen Duck's ‘The Thresher's Labour’, which presented an account of a year in the life of an agricultural labourer, began a vogue for poems which focused on their author's working life. Robert Tatersal depicted life as a bricklayer in 'The Bricklayer's Labours' while Mary Collier wrote about the daily labours of working wives and mothers in 'The Woman's Labour'. Life in service was illustrated by Robert Dodsley's 'Servitude' and 'The Footman. An Epistle', and by Mary Leapor in 'Crumble Hall'. William Falconer, a sailor, depicted life onboard ship in The Shipwreck. Yet though such poems offer a valuable insight into eighteenth century life, it must be remembered that they are literary works and not straightforward documentary fact. Labouring-class writers re-imagined the world in which they lived, sometimes radically, and their verse does not always reflect their immediate circumstances. Mary Collier wrote about the challenges of being a working wife and mother despite neither marrying nor having children. And though Robert Bloomfield, the author of the popular poem The Farmer's Boy, had worked on a farm as a youth, when he wrote the poem he was not an agricultural labourer but rather a cobbler by trade.
The third challenge faced by these writers was how juggle their status as labouring-class writers with their literary ambitions. Many of these poets were not simply content to write about their working life - they also wanted to participate in mainstream literary culture. Consequently they wrote verse in numerous genres and on numerous themes, ranging from biblical paraphrases to topical satire. Some wrote plays: Robert Dodsley had success in the 1730s with The Toy Shop and The King and the Miller of Mansfield, the bricklayer Henry Jones' play The Earl of Essex was well received in the 1750s, while the former milkwoman Ann Yearsley's Earl Goodwin was produced in Bath and Bristol in the 1790s. Yearsley also wrote a novel, The Royal Captives. William Falconer, meanwhile, channelled his knowledge of seamanship and his interest in language into The Universal Dictionary of the Marine.
Success (and failure)
The fourth challenge for these writers was how to cope with success when - or if - it came. These writers typically began their careers by achieving local notoriety and attracting the attention of patrons, who could help - or hinder - their development. Stephen Duck was the most lucky of them all, winning the patronage of Queen Caroline and leaving his labouring life behind to become a clergyman. Rumours of his subsequent depression and eventual suicide are probably exaggerated. Robert Dodsley too, had spectacular good fortune: his early writings won him the patronage of the poet Alexander Pope. With Pope's aid, Dodsley set up business as a bookseller and soon became the most important literary bookseller in London. On a more modest scale, patronage enabled William Falconer to leave life as a sailor behind, placing him in a job which gave him more time for his literary interests.
Other poets were less fortunate. After the publication of a collection of her verse, Ann Yearsley's relationship with her patron Hannah More deteriorated catastrophically. The two women disagreed over what should happen to the proceeds from the book, and the result was a public and very bitter quarrel. Mary Leapor was much more fortunate in finding local patrons who nurtured her talent and encouraged her to publish her work. However, her premature death at the age of just 24 meant that she never saw any of her works in print, nor received the acclaim that would posthumously come her way. Mary Collier, meanwhile, did live to see her poetry in print, but she was later to lament that it brought her little reward, complaining 'I lost nothing, neither did I gain much, others [having] run away with the profit.’
Works by a range of labouring-class writers can be found on this site as ebooks, and to explore the subject further, check out [Labouring-Class Poets Online], a database of almost 2000 writers from labouring-class backgrounds who were active in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Note usage restrictions: "Information from this database may be freely downloaded and used for teaching and research purposes, but may not be published in any form without the written permission of the copyright holders.") | 1,593 | ENGLISH | 1 |
May 9, 2019
Our topic this term is Wonderful World! We have learn so much already this year about the world around us, and now it’s time to continue by looking at plants. Did you know that each part of a flower has its own special purpose? After learning about these we planted our own seeds, making sure the flower had everything it needed to grow. We are already excited to see that some stems are starting to peek through the soil. Like us, the plants grow a little different to each other. Some shoot up quicker than others, but we will make sure they have enough sunlight and water to be the best that they can be. Next week we are going to see what happens to a flower that doesn’t have sunlight or water…we wonder what we’ll see! | <urn:uuid:edd377ac-5335-40dc-933d-82d832d7e198> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://ibsb.ro/year-1-planting-seeds/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00276.warc.gz | en | 0.980555 | 165 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.16454601287841797,
-0.23771315813064575,
0.5386273860931396,
-0.36048784852027893,
0.5477678775787354,
0.03844994679093361,
0.2768385112285614,
-0.07321399450302124,
-0.0926811695098877,
0.5013270378112793,
0.2661152780056,
-0.1776614487171173,
0.10604117810726166,
0.4423515498638153,
... | 4 | May 9, 2019
Our topic this term is Wonderful World! We have learn so much already this year about the world around us, and now it’s time to continue by looking at plants. Did you know that each part of a flower has its own special purpose? After learning about these we planted our own seeds, making sure the flower had everything it needed to grow. We are already excited to see that some stems are starting to peek through the soil. Like us, the plants grow a little different to each other. Some shoot up quicker than others, but we will make sure they have enough sunlight and water to be the best that they can be. Next week we are going to see what happens to a flower that doesn’t have sunlight or water…we wonder what we’ll see! | 164 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Date of birth: 14 July 1862
- Date of death: 6 Feb 1918
- Country: Austria
The article is dedicated to today’s event. 14 Jul 2012 Gustav Klimt would have been 150 years. Gustav Klimt an Austrian artist, born July 14, 1862. Many call him the founder of Austrian modernism. A painter painted mostly women, naked women. In his paintings are often attended by a Frank eroticism.
Klimt’s father was also a painter and an engraver on gold. The mother of all life dreamed of becoming a musician, but it never came. In the family of Klimov had 8 children, Gustav was born second.
The child child was in poverty, despite the good father’s profession. The country has not had a permanent job, so had to endure financial difficulties. To draw Gustav learned from his father, but in 1876 he enrolled in the art and craft school, which he entered in 1877 and his brother. All three sons of Ernest Klimt become future artists.
Brothers for a long time worked together, were decorated with frescoes, theatres, various buildings, museums. In 1888, Gustav received a well-deserved award – the Golden Cross from the Emperor Franz Joseph. All went well, and things went uphill, but in 1892 his father died and the brother of Gustav Klimt, and therefore, the entire responsibility for the support of the family fell on the shoulders of the artist.
Gustav Klimt wrote a lot especially when the family was out on the lake Attersee, and it was quite often. It was here that he fulfilled his beautiful landscapes. This is the only genre that interested in the artist, where it did not appear people. But despite this, many scientists find in the landscapes of Klimt the human figure, and this is the truth.
In 1894 Klimt received one of the large orders. Had to submit 3 paintings which decorated the ceiling of the University of Vienna. So, in 1900, were “Philosophy”, “Medicine” and “Jurisprudence”. But society did not accept these paintings, considering them too explicit and therefore not exposed at the University. It was the last public Commission of Klimt.
Since the early 1900-ies begins the so-called “Golden period” of the artist. In receiving coverage the burden created such paintings as the “Palace of Athens”, “Judith” and others. At this time the society to perceive the work of Klimt, but not the only reason why this period is called the Golden. In the paintings of the artist very often is dominated by the color gold, gold that was very fond of his fans.
Gustav Klimt led a normal life, worked hard, and at home. He was a famous artist, so commissions came to him regularly, and taking it interesting. Women posed for him with great pleasure, some of them were prostitutes. Klimt said that the self-portraits of him to draw interesting much exciting to draw other individuals, and especially women. Gustav claimed that his paintings have a lot to say about it, you just get a good look at them.
February 6, 1918 Gustav Klimt biography ends. He died of pneumonia, carrying before it a stroke. He is buried in Vienna. Today, 150 years since the birth of this remarkable artist and this date should not go unnoticed. Well, as we promised at the end of this article you can see a video dedicated to the paintings of Gustav Klimt. | <urn:uuid:b8ea6cf2-9e86-4174-a140-950df897f324> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://stampostage.info/biography-of-gustav-klimt-the-description-of-pictures/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00321.warc.gz | en | 0.988635 | 757 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.014672450721263885,
0.43787315487861633,
0.40957146883010864,
-0.19236421585083008,
0.09596633911132812,
-0.043598778545856476,
0.018771793693304062,
0.04595242068171501,
0.07805347442626953,
0.08100669831037521,
0.16854038834571838,
-0.4598424434661865,
0.008934441953897476,
0.576344311... | 12 | - Date of birth: 14 July 1862
- Date of death: 6 Feb 1918
- Country: Austria
The article is dedicated to today’s event. 14 Jul 2012 Gustav Klimt would have been 150 years. Gustav Klimt an Austrian artist, born July 14, 1862. Many call him the founder of Austrian modernism. A painter painted mostly women, naked women. In his paintings are often attended by a Frank eroticism.
Klimt’s father was also a painter and an engraver on gold. The mother of all life dreamed of becoming a musician, but it never came. In the family of Klimov had 8 children, Gustav was born second.
The child child was in poverty, despite the good father’s profession. The country has not had a permanent job, so had to endure financial difficulties. To draw Gustav learned from his father, but in 1876 he enrolled in the art and craft school, which he entered in 1877 and his brother. All three sons of Ernest Klimt become future artists.
Brothers for a long time worked together, were decorated with frescoes, theatres, various buildings, museums. In 1888, Gustav received a well-deserved award – the Golden Cross from the Emperor Franz Joseph. All went well, and things went uphill, but in 1892 his father died and the brother of Gustav Klimt, and therefore, the entire responsibility for the support of the family fell on the shoulders of the artist.
Gustav Klimt wrote a lot especially when the family was out on the lake Attersee, and it was quite often. It was here that he fulfilled his beautiful landscapes. This is the only genre that interested in the artist, where it did not appear people. But despite this, many scientists find in the landscapes of Klimt the human figure, and this is the truth.
In 1894 Klimt received one of the large orders. Had to submit 3 paintings which decorated the ceiling of the University of Vienna. So, in 1900, were “Philosophy”, “Medicine” and “Jurisprudence”. But society did not accept these paintings, considering them too explicit and therefore not exposed at the University. It was the last public Commission of Klimt.
Since the early 1900-ies begins the so-called “Golden period” of the artist. In receiving coverage the burden created such paintings as the “Palace of Athens”, “Judith” and others. At this time the society to perceive the work of Klimt, but not the only reason why this period is called the Golden. In the paintings of the artist very often is dominated by the color gold, gold that was very fond of his fans.
Gustav Klimt led a normal life, worked hard, and at home. He was a famous artist, so commissions came to him regularly, and taking it interesting. Women posed for him with great pleasure, some of them were prostitutes. Klimt said that the self-portraits of him to draw interesting much exciting to draw other individuals, and especially women. Gustav claimed that his paintings have a lot to say about it, you just get a good look at them.
February 6, 1918 Gustav Klimt biography ends. He died of pneumonia, carrying before it a stroke. He is buried in Vienna. Today, 150 years since the birth of this remarkable artist and this date should not go unnoticed. Well, as we promised at the end of this article you can see a video dedicated to the paintings of Gustav Klimt. | 791 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Here are just a few brief thoughts to put the issue of slavery and the Civil War into perspective:
- The Baptists at the time of the Civil War were basically divided into two very loose conventions: The Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists. They were one fellowship, but separated because they began to disallow slaveholders to be supported as missionaries. Therefore, the Southerners separated just before the Civil War because they still believed that slavery was instituted by God to “keep the races separate.”
- The Puritans (Congregationalists) of the era strongly opposed slavery. One of those men was D.L. Moody. Moody enlisted in service with the YMCA to preach to Northern soldiers of General Grant, and was present at the battles of Shiloh, Murfreesboro, and the taking of Richmond. Moody was also a staunch supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party. The south may have had General Jackson on their side praying, but the north had “General” Moody praying!
- Other Christian abolitionists of the time included Peter Cartwright and Charles Finney. Even the English preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon preached against American slavery. In the south, his sermons were outlawed and burned due to his strong opposition of slavery.
- The Republican Party was only a few years old when their first president, Abraham Lincoln, was elected. The Republicans were the main stream abolitionists of the period. Democrats, for the most part, opposed the war and complete abolition.
- Yes, I believe that the Civil War, at the beginning, was an issue of states rights (Confederate thought), and preservation of the nation (Union thought). No, the union was not the side who made the war an issue of slavery: it was the south. The north simply wanted the Union preserved, while the Confederacy wanted their supreme “state right” of slavery.
- The south was the aggressor. Simply because they didn’t like that Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans were elected, they separated from the Union. They fired the first shots at Fort Sumpter. They continually insisted that “their land” was being invaded, while at the same time invading the Northern states of Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Any black man found in those states, whether they had ever been a slave or not, was sent into bondage. Now, who was the aggressor? And who was trying to preserve peace and justice?
- The Confederacy had some very godly generals fighting for them: including Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Robert E. Lee. That does not prove, however, that the south was justified.
- Some would say that it was good that slaves were brought to America, because without slavery they would still be living in absolute poverty in Africa. So, they would say, American slavery was a righteous cause. Here, I believe I can equate the bondage of Israel in Egypt with the bondage of blacks in America. It grieved God to see his people suffer in affliction. He did not want them in slavery. Yet even amidst the slavery, God’s Divine Will still worked, despite the sin of slave-holding by the Egyptians and the Confederacy. Even in spite of bondage, slaves came to know Christ as Savior, and would eventually be free in the most prosperous country in the world: with an opportunity to live with Christian liberty.
- The freeing of slaves itself did not promote the degradation of much of the black society as we know it today. There were many Christian agencies (not government!) that taught the freed slaves business practice, land ownership, and agriculture. Men like Booker T. Washington promoted the ideas of opportunity through industry and intelligence. Black society made large steps in the right direction during reconstruction and into the late 1800’s. It was not until the socialist/welfare preachings of W.E.B. DuBois and others that black culture took a drastic turn in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, entitlement replaced industry in the minds of many blacks, the results of which is seen prominently today. However, each man still has his chance to be a successful American, no matter what his or her background may entail.
Let me know where you agree, or even disagree! Comment away! | <urn:uuid:15909b53-3fd3-4adb-ba90-bf9ca0cd8f84> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://speckhals.com/the-study/lincoln-slavery-and-the-civil-war/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00126.warc.gz | en | 0.983634 | 883 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.37956854701042175,
0.4239720404148102,
-0.03667296841740608,
-0.24625453352928162,
-0.048767559230327606,
0.12945541739463806,
-0.4302389919757843,
-0.14321158826351166,
-0.20194938778877258,
0.27661752700805664,
0.04212336987257004,
0.08007688820362091,
-0.000029952614568173885,
0.3983... | 4 | Here are just a few brief thoughts to put the issue of slavery and the Civil War into perspective:
- The Baptists at the time of the Civil War were basically divided into two very loose conventions: The Southern Baptists and Northern Baptists. They were one fellowship, but separated because they began to disallow slaveholders to be supported as missionaries. Therefore, the Southerners separated just before the Civil War because they still believed that slavery was instituted by God to “keep the races separate.”
- The Puritans (Congregationalists) of the era strongly opposed slavery. One of those men was D.L. Moody. Moody enlisted in service with the YMCA to preach to Northern soldiers of General Grant, and was present at the battles of Shiloh, Murfreesboro, and the taking of Richmond. Moody was also a staunch supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party. The south may have had General Jackson on their side praying, but the north had “General” Moody praying!
- Other Christian abolitionists of the time included Peter Cartwright and Charles Finney. Even the English preacher, Charles H. Spurgeon preached against American slavery. In the south, his sermons were outlawed and burned due to his strong opposition of slavery.
- The Republican Party was only a few years old when their first president, Abraham Lincoln, was elected. The Republicans were the main stream abolitionists of the period. Democrats, for the most part, opposed the war and complete abolition.
- Yes, I believe that the Civil War, at the beginning, was an issue of states rights (Confederate thought), and preservation of the nation (Union thought). No, the union was not the side who made the war an issue of slavery: it was the south. The north simply wanted the Union preserved, while the Confederacy wanted their supreme “state right” of slavery.
- The south was the aggressor. Simply because they didn’t like that Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans were elected, they separated from the Union. They fired the first shots at Fort Sumpter. They continually insisted that “their land” was being invaded, while at the same time invading the Northern states of Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Any black man found in those states, whether they had ever been a slave or not, was sent into bondage. Now, who was the aggressor? And who was trying to preserve peace and justice?
- The Confederacy had some very godly generals fighting for them: including Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson and Robert E. Lee. That does not prove, however, that the south was justified.
- Some would say that it was good that slaves were brought to America, because without slavery they would still be living in absolute poverty in Africa. So, they would say, American slavery was a righteous cause. Here, I believe I can equate the bondage of Israel in Egypt with the bondage of blacks in America. It grieved God to see his people suffer in affliction. He did not want them in slavery. Yet even amidst the slavery, God’s Divine Will still worked, despite the sin of slave-holding by the Egyptians and the Confederacy. Even in spite of bondage, slaves came to know Christ as Savior, and would eventually be free in the most prosperous country in the world: with an opportunity to live with Christian liberty.
- The freeing of slaves itself did not promote the degradation of much of the black society as we know it today. There were many Christian agencies (not government!) that taught the freed slaves business practice, land ownership, and agriculture. Men like Booker T. Washington promoted the ideas of opportunity through industry and intelligence. Black society made large steps in the right direction during reconstruction and into the late 1800’s. It was not until the socialist/welfare preachings of W.E.B. DuBois and others that black culture took a drastic turn in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, entitlement replaced industry in the minds of many blacks, the results of which is seen prominently today. However, each man still has his chance to be a successful American, no matter what his or her background may entail.
Let me know where you agree, or even disagree! Comment away! | 860 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Fichte, Wilhelm and Bismark all had similar ideas regarding the unification of Germany; their ideas of why and how to do that varied, however. Fichte wrote about how Germany was divided by foreign imperialists who failed to see and value the unity of the German people under one state. He believed that the primary reason to seek German unification was to unify the German people, not to bolster the power of the German Empire or that of Prussia. He simply wanted to unify the German people. He wrote,“it is not because men dwell between certain mountains and rivers that they are a people, but, on the contrary, men dwell together-and, if their luck has so arranged it, are protected by rivers and mountains-because they were a people already by a law of nature which is much higher.” The German people had been divided and needed to be reunited according to a higher power.
Wilhelm had different reasoning for why he wanted to go to war with Austria and reunite Germany. He wanted to wage war in order to unite Austria with the German Empire, to the dismay of Bismarck. Wilhelm initially wanted to unite the German people under his crown by peaceful means: “And may God grant that We and our successors on the imperial throne may at all times increase the wealth of the German Empire, not by military conquests, but by the blessings and the gifts of peace, in the realm of national prosperity, liberty, and morality.” Once he began to gain power, however, he sought a less peaceful means to an end. The acquisition of land was not even the primary motive; Wilhelm and his generals primarily wanted Austria to submit to German hegemony. Bismarck feared “that the king and his advisors would be intoxicated by the brilliant victory over Austria and would wish to press on, and perhaps lose much in the end.” | <urn:uuid:ef736a44-c952-4011-a2b9-9ff588b108db> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://blogs.dickinson.edu/quallsk/2014/02/18/wilhelm-bismarck-and-fichte-on-austria/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00430.warc.gz | en | 0.98834 | 387 | 4.09375 | 4 | [
-0.47902682423591614,
0.5163536071777344,
0.040523793548345566,
-0.14320534467697144,
-0.10070718079805374,
-0.09531979262828827,
-0.0070450929924845695,
0.21461498737335205,
-0.09028089046478271,
-0.20135723054409027,
0.31749066710472107,
-0.6032671928405762,
-0.13512614369392395,
0.18736... | 6 | Fichte, Wilhelm and Bismark all had similar ideas regarding the unification of Germany; their ideas of why and how to do that varied, however. Fichte wrote about how Germany was divided by foreign imperialists who failed to see and value the unity of the German people under one state. He believed that the primary reason to seek German unification was to unify the German people, not to bolster the power of the German Empire or that of Prussia. He simply wanted to unify the German people. He wrote,“it is not because men dwell between certain mountains and rivers that they are a people, but, on the contrary, men dwell together-and, if their luck has so arranged it, are protected by rivers and mountains-because they were a people already by a law of nature which is much higher.” The German people had been divided and needed to be reunited according to a higher power.
Wilhelm had different reasoning for why he wanted to go to war with Austria and reunite Germany. He wanted to wage war in order to unite Austria with the German Empire, to the dismay of Bismarck. Wilhelm initially wanted to unite the German people under his crown by peaceful means: “And may God grant that We and our successors on the imperial throne may at all times increase the wealth of the German Empire, not by military conquests, but by the blessings and the gifts of peace, in the realm of national prosperity, liberty, and morality.” Once he began to gain power, however, he sought a less peaceful means to an end. The acquisition of land was not even the primary motive; Wilhelm and his generals primarily wanted Austria to submit to German hegemony. Bismarck feared “that the king and his advisors would be intoxicated by the brilliant victory over Austria and would wish to press on, and perhaps lose much in the end.” | 375 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In its most basic form, a flute is a musical instrument which is an open hollow tube into which air is blown.Hence the flute falls into the category of wind instruments. Flutes date back to thousands of years ago and were seen across different countries in the world. Each country or region had its own distinctive design style of the instrument.
The ancient flutes were made of rudimentary materials such as bone, wood or clay. Today the more modern version of the instrument is made of metal and has become a finely honed instrument.
In India the term ‘flute’ brings to mind images of Lord Krishna with his traditional bamboo flute. The Indian flutes are different from their western counterparts both in style and materials used. The Indian flute commonly known as the ‘bansuri’ in north India is made of bamboo and is used in classical music. It can have six or seven holes. The flute used predominantly in Carnatic music is different from its northern equivalent in that it has eight holes. The quality of the sound produced by the flute depends on the bamboo used to make it.
India has been the home to many great flautists who have carved a niche for themselves both in the country and globally. The soothing sound of the bansuri is enjoyed by most people in the country and continues to be a favored musical instrument among audiences.
We impart specialized training and aim to create a new generation of skilled flautists in the country. Those above the age of eight who wish to learn this instrument are welcome to join our course. | <urn:uuid:ac3d3919-ac06-4aab-ba89-42af13305cf8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://krtyaved.com/flute/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00250.warc.gz | en | 0.980512 | 322 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
0.2563139498233795,
-0.028427233919501305,
0.4754440188407898,
-0.5247097611427307,
-0.2586500346660614,
0.3527429401874542,
0.7409772872924805,
-0.14340907335281372,
-0.029644502326846123,
-0.05509992316365242,
-0.3025159537792206,
-0.42542600631713867,
0.18093262612819672,
0.395137339830... | 3 | In its most basic form, a flute is a musical instrument which is an open hollow tube into which air is blown.Hence the flute falls into the category of wind instruments. Flutes date back to thousands of years ago and were seen across different countries in the world. Each country or region had its own distinctive design style of the instrument.
The ancient flutes were made of rudimentary materials such as bone, wood or clay. Today the more modern version of the instrument is made of metal and has become a finely honed instrument.
In India the term ‘flute’ brings to mind images of Lord Krishna with his traditional bamboo flute. The Indian flutes are different from their western counterparts both in style and materials used. The Indian flute commonly known as the ‘bansuri’ in north India is made of bamboo and is used in classical music. It can have six or seven holes. The flute used predominantly in Carnatic music is different from its northern equivalent in that it has eight holes. The quality of the sound produced by the flute depends on the bamboo used to make it.
India has been the home to many great flautists who have carved a niche for themselves both in the country and globally. The soothing sound of the bansuri is enjoyed by most people in the country and continues to be a favored musical instrument among audiences.
We impart specialized training and aim to create a new generation of skilled flautists in the country. Those above the age of eight who wish to learn this instrument are welcome to join our course. | 308 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Polynesian ancestors of Māori first arrived in New Zealand around 1300. Coming from small tropical islands in Polynesia, they found themselves on a larger, cooler island group and had to adapt to the new environment. Initially they spread out across the archipelago, using the sea as a coastal highway, looking for ideal places to live. They sought accessible food resources, materials for clothes, shelter and weapons, and waterways for transport by waka (canoe).
Māori probably settled the North Island first, followed soon after by the South Island. The rapid spread was due to the availability of big game – moa and seals – throughout the North and South islands. Initially the population in both islands would have been similar. However later the North Island population grew significantly, while the population in the colder South Island may not have reached much over 5,000.
Polynesian settlers brought a number of plants from Polynesia. Cultigens that survived were the kūmara, taro, uwhi (yam), hue (bottle gourd), aute (paper mulberry) and tī pore (cabbage tree). In general these grew best in the northern North Island. Breadfruit, coconut palms and bananas could not grow in the New Zealand climate – they were plants carried throughout the Pacific by Polynesian migrations.
When Polynesians first arrived around 80% of the country was covered in bush. It provided small seasonal berries, and roots, but not the year-round tropical harvests of coconut, breadfruit and banana that were possible in Polynesia.
Bush was burnt off to provide gardening sites and to encourage the regrowth of the edible native fern root aruhe, or bracken. Large tracts of bush were burnt, particularly coastal areas in the North Island and the east coast of the South Island.
While the remaining bush was important for fowling, small- to medium-sized birds only became a major part of the diet after the extinction of the large flightless moa, and the depletion of seal colonies, about a century after settlement.
Access to appropriate trees for building houses and waka was also important. Kauri was available in the north of the North Island, and tōtara grew throughout the country.
Māori also brought the kurī (Polynesian dog) and kiore (Pacific rat) with them. Neither required a particular habitat. The kiore thrived in the wild, but the kurī depended on people to provide food.
Māori tended to settle on the coast near rivers, harbours, and estuaries. This was important for access to freshwater and saltwater fish, and shellfish.
Stone resources were used to make tools, and for gardening and fishing implements. The most important tools were toki (adzes) and whao (chisels). The majority of early adzes were made from basalt and other hard rock like adzite (baked argillite) and greywacke. Later adzes were made from greywacke or basalt in the North Island and nephrite (pounamu, or greenstone) in the South Island. Prized stone was traded extensively.
Around the time of European arrival the Māori population was spread unevenly throughout New Zealand. The majority, around 80%, lived in the northern North Island, and the coastal regions northwards of Whanganui and Hawke’s Bay. This area, which was suitable for horticulture, is called ‘Iwitini’ (many people) by scholars.
Around 15% of the population were found in the remainder of the North Island, and the coast of the South Island running from Cape Farewell at the western tip to Banks Peninsula on the eastern side, where people had some access to horticulture. This is known as ‘Waenganui’ (the middle). Te Wāhi Pounamu (the greenstone place), the remainder of the South Island, had no horticulture. Only 5% of the Māori population lived there.
Up to 80% of New Zealand’s Māori population lived in the region anthropologists call Iwitini (many people), the northern North Island and the island’s coastal regions as far south as Whanganui on the western side and southern Hawke’s Bay on the east.
Polynesian horticulture was most successful in this area. Polynesian cultigens were kūmara, taro, uwhi (yam), hue (bottle gourd), aute (paper mulberry) and tī pore (cabbage tree). The kūmara grew best in this region, and was the principal food crop cultivated. Except in some small areas with ideal microclimates, taro would not grow outside of the region.
The importance of horticulture to Māori is illustrated by the fact that this region had 98% of all pā, which were often erected to protect fertile lands and crops.
The kūmara harvest was a time for feasting. Kūmara damaged when they were dug up were eaten, and the birds in the forest were fat. This coincided with the rise of Matariki in the dawn sky and the Māori new year. People had a saying ‘Matariki ahunga nui’ – Matariki provider of plentiful food.
Polynesian horticulture went hand in hand with bush-burning. Large tracts of land in the region, particularly coastal land, was cleared of forest. Coastal strips were cleared from Whanganui through to Taranaki, in Hawke's Bay and on the East Coast. Much of coastal Bay of Plenty, the Coromandel and Auckland had significant bush clearance, together with large areas of Northland.
Most of the population within the region lived on or near the coast. There were numerous harbours and estuaries rich in fish and shellfish, as well as fertile land for horticulture, and access to the sea for transport.
Land around Te Mānuka (Manukau Harbour) was highly sought after. The large harbour had portages to the Pacific and the Waikato River and was valued as a fishing ground for snapper, flounder and mullet, and for shellfish. Many kāinga (villages) were found on its shores and pā were erected on most of the volcanic cones nearby.
The Whanganui-a-Orotu was also a valued harbour in Hawke's Bay. Its abundance of resources meant the large population, possibly numbering in the thousands, lived near the harbour.
Stone resources were heavily traded throughout the country and land near major stone sources was valued.
The Coromandel provided good access to obsidian, basalt and chert. Obsidian was also found on nearby Aotea (Great Barrier Island), in the far north, and on Tūhua (Mayor Island) in the Bay of Plenty. Chert was also found on the East Coast. Other stone resources such as pounamu (greenstone) were only available through trading.
Kauri for large waka (canoes) was available within the region, though its southern limits were Kāwhia in the west to Tauranga in the east. Tōtara was also used for building.
Waenganui means the middle. In the North Island the Waenganui region comprised the interior of the North Island below Auckland, and the coast south of Whanganui and Hawke’s Bay. In the South Island, it covered the coast from Cape Farewell to Banks Peninsula. Waenganui had around 15% of the Māori population. Limited horticulture of Polynesian cultigens was possible in some parts, though taro would not grow at all.
Horticulture was not possible in the central North Island, but crops were grown elsewhere, especially on the Wairarapa coast. Soils were modified and stone walls were made. Forest was cleared so land could be cultivated.
In the South Island evidence of horticulture is found along the strip from Cape Farewell to Banks Peninsula, including stone structures, modified soils and borrow pits (holes where stone had been carried away).
Limestone and greywacke were the most significant stone resources in the north of the region. High-quality argillite was found on Rangitoto ki te Tonga (D’Urville Island) and was traded through the North and South islands. Limestone flint was also present.
Stone was traded in from other areas. Obsidian from Tūhua (Mayor Island), Coromandel Peninsula, Northland and the central North Island, and argillite from Rangitoto (D’Urville Island) have been found at an archaeological site in Wairarapa.
In the northern part of the region large areas of bush around Lake Taupō and the Rotorua lakes were destroyed by the eruption of Kaharoa, or burnt off for horticulture. Further south, most of the Wairarapa was cleared of bush. In the South Island, the forest was cleared in Whakatū (Nelson), and from Wairau down to Akaroa on Banks Peninsula.
Prior to the extinction of moa and the depletion of seal colonies, moa and seal were significant foods. Evidence of sealing, and medium-sized moa hunting and butchering sites, is found along the Wellington coast and in the South Island, including one at Whakatū. Particularly large moa hunting and butchering sites have been found at Banks Peninsula and Wairau.
Te Wāhi Pounamu is the name used for the South Island, excluding Te Tau Ihu o te Waka (the top of the South Island), and the east coast as far as Banks Peninsula.
Polynesian horticulture was impossible in this area, and a nomadic seasonal hunter-gatherer economy was necessary. This sustained fewer people, and the region had only around 5% of the Māori population before Europeans arrived.
Significant moa hunting and butchering sites have been found from North Canterbury to Southland. Sealing was particularly important in Otago and Southland.
Once moa became extinct and seal colonies were depleted, new foods were found in Murihiku (the far south). The most important sources were tuna (eels), mangā (barracouta), tī kōuka (native cabbage tree, whose roots and trunk were baked to make a kind of sugar), inland weka and coastal tītī (muttonbirds). These were all collected seasonally.
On the east coast, the bush was cleared almost entirely. But most forest on the wet rugged West Coast remained intact. Tī kōuka leaves were often used for clothing. Hue (bottle gourd), used for containers as well as for eating, could not be grown in this area, so rimurapa (bull kelp) was used to make pōhā, stout seaweed containers in which birds and eels were preserved in their own fat.
The West Coast was a particularly difficult place to survive. The Māori population may have numbered only in the low hundreds. Freshwater fishing for tuna (eels), grayling and whitebait, and fowling for weka, kākāpō, kererū, kākā and tūī, were the main sources of food. Birds and eels were preserved in pōhā. Fish and whitebait were smoked and dried. The rugged coast made fishing difficult. Vegetable foods included podocarp berries and tree-fern pith.
A large number of stone resources were found throughout this part of the South Island, including basalt, silcrete, porcellanite, Pahutane flint, greywacke and argillite. Most revered of all was pounamu – nephrite and bowenite (greenstone). Pounamu weapons, in particular mere pounamu (greenstone hand clubs), and toki poutangata (greenstone adzes), became symbols of chiefly authority. Pounamu trails were created to take stone from the West Coast over to the east coast of the island. From there pounamu was traded with other tribes, from the deep south to the far north of the country.
Around 1500 AD the ancestors of the Moriori people left the South Island and settled Rēkohu (the Chatham Islands), 800 kilometres east of New Zealand. They came up against the difficulties encountered by their Māori ancestors when settling the North and South islands in the 13th century: adjusting to a different climate and adopting new resources.
While it is possible that plants introduced to New Zealand by Polynesians – such as kūmara and taro – were taken to the Chathams, they did not survive. None of the plants brought from Polynesia could grow because of the overcast temperate climate. However the edible seed from the kopi (karaka tree), which may have been brought from New Zealand, was planted and grew.
While the kurī and the kiore may both have been taken to the islands, only the kiore survived. Kiore were commonly caught in broadleaf forest, especially in autumn.
The only other food sources Moriori could rely on came from the islands themselves and the surrounding ocean.
The plant foods eaten by Moriori were kernels from the kopi, small berries, nīkau buds and aruhe (bracken) fern root. Flax was used for clothing.
Shellfish were plentiful and inshore fish were caught using set nets. There were a number of freshwater fish, but eels were exploited the most.
Fur seals were common on the Chathams. There were breeding populations on the main islands and on offshore islets. Large seals lying on shore were the most plentiful and easily killed food resource available – they provided rich protein and fat, and their skins were also used for clothing. Occasionally, a pilot whale would be stranded, and leopard seals, sea lions and elephant seals were all taken if found locally.
The heaviest and most easily caught birds were the native pigeon, bellbird and tūī, found in broadleaf forest. Rails lived in bog shrublands and at the forest edge. Ducks were plentiful in large wetland areas and lakes, and were easily caught during their moulting season. There were 16 species of penguins and flying oceanic birds which went ashore on the Chathams to breed or moult. Fledglings were easy to catch and were taken in large numbers. Adult birds were seldom taken. Oceanic birds were available all year, but in larger numbers in winter and summer.
There were no large trees suitable for waka (canoes). The general lack of good-quality wood meant that Moriori adapted their waka design to the resources available. Moriori waka were more like rafts than canoes. They were made from flax stalks and wood from the māpou tree, with rimurapa (bull kelp) for flotation.
Obsidian from Tūhua (Mayor Island), Aotea (Great Barrier Island) and Rotorua–Taupō, and argillite from Nelson, have been located in the Chathams, and would have been taken over by the first settlers. Stone resources found and used on the island included Takatika grit, dolomite and chert.
Davidson, Janet. The prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul, 1987.
Prickett, Nigel, ed. The first thousand years: regional perspectives in New Zealand archaeology. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 1982. | <urn:uuid:208bc14f-43e4-47c3-a2c6-db428792a043> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://teara.govt.nz/en/te-ohanga-onamata-a-rohe-economic-regions/print | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00053.warc.gz | en | 0.980522 | 3,332 | 3.96875 | 4 | [
-0.1261577606201172,
0.22586295008659363,
0.32196134328842163,
-0.24564222991466522,
-0.15975971519947052,
0.10191746056079865,
-0.06982079893350601,
-0.1550513207912445,
-0.07509899139404297,
0.48331180214881897,
0.22935497760772705,
-0.7299525737762451,
0.39603936672210693,
0.61751127243... | 3 | The Polynesian ancestors of Māori first arrived in New Zealand around 1300. Coming from small tropical islands in Polynesia, they found themselves on a larger, cooler island group and had to adapt to the new environment. Initially they spread out across the archipelago, using the sea as a coastal highway, looking for ideal places to live. They sought accessible food resources, materials for clothes, shelter and weapons, and waterways for transport by waka (canoe).
Māori probably settled the North Island first, followed soon after by the South Island. The rapid spread was due to the availability of big game – moa and seals – throughout the North and South islands. Initially the population in both islands would have been similar. However later the North Island population grew significantly, while the population in the colder South Island may not have reached much over 5,000.
Polynesian settlers brought a number of plants from Polynesia. Cultigens that survived were the kūmara, taro, uwhi (yam), hue (bottle gourd), aute (paper mulberry) and tī pore (cabbage tree). In general these grew best in the northern North Island. Breadfruit, coconut palms and bananas could not grow in the New Zealand climate – they were plants carried throughout the Pacific by Polynesian migrations.
When Polynesians first arrived around 80% of the country was covered in bush. It provided small seasonal berries, and roots, but not the year-round tropical harvests of coconut, breadfruit and banana that were possible in Polynesia.
Bush was burnt off to provide gardening sites and to encourage the regrowth of the edible native fern root aruhe, or bracken. Large tracts of bush were burnt, particularly coastal areas in the North Island and the east coast of the South Island.
While the remaining bush was important for fowling, small- to medium-sized birds only became a major part of the diet after the extinction of the large flightless moa, and the depletion of seal colonies, about a century after settlement.
Access to appropriate trees for building houses and waka was also important. Kauri was available in the north of the North Island, and tōtara grew throughout the country.
Māori also brought the kurī (Polynesian dog) and kiore (Pacific rat) with them. Neither required a particular habitat. The kiore thrived in the wild, but the kurī depended on people to provide food.
Māori tended to settle on the coast near rivers, harbours, and estuaries. This was important for access to freshwater and saltwater fish, and shellfish.
Stone resources were used to make tools, and for gardening and fishing implements. The most important tools were toki (adzes) and whao (chisels). The majority of early adzes were made from basalt and other hard rock like adzite (baked argillite) and greywacke. Later adzes were made from greywacke or basalt in the North Island and nephrite (pounamu, or greenstone) in the South Island. Prized stone was traded extensively.
Around the time of European arrival the Māori population was spread unevenly throughout New Zealand. The majority, around 80%, lived in the northern North Island, and the coastal regions northwards of Whanganui and Hawke’s Bay. This area, which was suitable for horticulture, is called ‘Iwitini’ (many people) by scholars.
Around 15% of the population were found in the remainder of the North Island, and the coast of the South Island running from Cape Farewell at the western tip to Banks Peninsula on the eastern side, where people had some access to horticulture. This is known as ‘Waenganui’ (the middle). Te Wāhi Pounamu (the greenstone place), the remainder of the South Island, had no horticulture. Only 5% of the Māori population lived there.
Up to 80% of New Zealand’s Māori population lived in the region anthropologists call Iwitini (many people), the northern North Island and the island’s coastal regions as far south as Whanganui on the western side and southern Hawke’s Bay on the east.
Polynesian horticulture was most successful in this area. Polynesian cultigens were kūmara, taro, uwhi (yam), hue (bottle gourd), aute (paper mulberry) and tī pore (cabbage tree). The kūmara grew best in this region, and was the principal food crop cultivated. Except in some small areas with ideal microclimates, taro would not grow outside of the region.
The importance of horticulture to Māori is illustrated by the fact that this region had 98% of all pā, which were often erected to protect fertile lands and crops.
The kūmara harvest was a time for feasting. Kūmara damaged when they were dug up were eaten, and the birds in the forest were fat. This coincided with the rise of Matariki in the dawn sky and the Māori new year. People had a saying ‘Matariki ahunga nui’ – Matariki provider of plentiful food.
Polynesian horticulture went hand in hand with bush-burning. Large tracts of land in the region, particularly coastal land, was cleared of forest. Coastal strips were cleared from Whanganui through to Taranaki, in Hawke's Bay and on the East Coast. Much of coastal Bay of Plenty, the Coromandel and Auckland had significant bush clearance, together with large areas of Northland.
Most of the population within the region lived on or near the coast. There were numerous harbours and estuaries rich in fish and shellfish, as well as fertile land for horticulture, and access to the sea for transport.
Land around Te Mānuka (Manukau Harbour) was highly sought after. The large harbour had portages to the Pacific and the Waikato River and was valued as a fishing ground for snapper, flounder and mullet, and for shellfish. Many kāinga (villages) were found on its shores and pā were erected on most of the volcanic cones nearby.
The Whanganui-a-Orotu was also a valued harbour in Hawke's Bay. Its abundance of resources meant the large population, possibly numbering in the thousands, lived near the harbour.
Stone resources were heavily traded throughout the country and land near major stone sources was valued.
The Coromandel provided good access to obsidian, basalt and chert. Obsidian was also found on nearby Aotea (Great Barrier Island), in the far north, and on Tūhua (Mayor Island) in the Bay of Plenty. Chert was also found on the East Coast. Other stone resources such as pounamu (greenstone) were only available through trading.
Kauri for large waka (canoes) was available within the region, though its southern limits were Kāwhia in the west to Tauranga in the east. Tōtara was also used for building.
Waenganui means the middle. In the North Island the Waenganui region comprised the interior of the North Island below Auckland, and the coast south of Whanganui and Hawke’s Bay. In the South Island, it covered the coast from Cape Farewell to Banks Peninsula. Waenganui had around 15% of the Māori population. Limited horticulture of Polynesian cultigens was possible in some parts, though taro would not grow at all.
Horticulture was not possible in the central North Island, but crops were grown elsewhere, especially on the Wairarapa coast. Soils were modified and stone walls were made. Forest was cleared so land could be cultivated.
In the South Island evidence of horticulture is found along the strip from Cape Farewell to Banks Peninsula, including stone structures, modified soils and borrow pits (holes where stone had been carried away).
Limestone and greywacke were the most significant stone resources in the north of the region. High-quality argillite was found on Rangitoto ki te Tonga (D’Urville Island) and was traded through the North and South islands. Limestone flint was also present.
Stone was traded in from other areas. Obsidian from Tūhua (Mayor Island), Coromandel Peninsula, Northland and the central North Island, and argillite from Rangitoto (D’Urville Island) have been found at an archaeological site in Wairarapa.
In the northern part of the region large areas of bush around Lake Taupō and the Rotorua lakes were destroyed by the eruption of Kaharoa, or burnt off for horticulture. Further south, most of the Wairarapa was cleared of bush. In the South Island, the forest was cleared in Whakatū (Nelson), and from Wairau down to Akaroa on Banks Peninsula.
Prior to the extinction of moa and the depletion of seal colonies, moa and seal were significant foods. Evidence of sealing, and medium-sized moa hunting and butchering sites, is found along the Wellington coast and in the South Island, including one at Whakatū. Particularly large moa hunting and butchering sites have been found at Banks Peninsula and Wairau.
Te Wāhi Pounamu is the name used for the South Island, excluding Te Tau Ihu o te Waka (the top of the South Island), and the east coast as far as Banks Peninsula.
Polynesian horticulture was impossible in this area, and a nomadic seasonal hunter-gatherer economy was necessary. This sustained fewer people, and the region had only around 5% of the Māori population before Europeans arrived.
Significant moa hunting and butchering sites have been found from North Canterbury to Southland. Sealing was particularly important in Otago and Southland.
Once moa became extinct and seal colonies were depleted, new foods were found in Murihiku (the far south). The most important sources were tuna (eels), mangā (barracouta), tī kōuka (native cabbage tree, whose roots and trunk were baked to make a kind of sugar), inland weka and coastal tītī (muttonbirds). These were all collected seasonally.
On the east coast, the bush was cleared almost entirely. But most forest on the wet rugged West Coast remained intact. Tī kōuka leaves were often used for clothing. Hue (bottle gourd), used for containers as well as for eating, could not be grown in this area, so rimurapa (bull kelp) was used to make pōhā, stout seaweed containers in which birds and eels were preserved in their own fat.
The West Coast was a particularly difficult place to survive. The Māori population may have numbered only in the low hundreds. Freshwater fishing for tuna (eels), grayling and whitebait, and fowling for weka, kākāpō, kererū, kākā and tūī, were the main sources of food. Birds and eels were preserved in pōhā. Fish and whitebait were smoked and dried. The rugged coast made fishing difficult. Vegetable foods included podocarp berries and tree-fern pith.
A large number of stone resources were found throughout this part of the South Island, including basalt, silcrete, porcellanite, Pahutane flint, greywacke and argillite. Most revered of all was pounamu – nephrite and bowenite (greenstone). Pounamu weapons, in particular mere pounamu (greenstone hand clubs), and toki poutangata (greenstone adzes), became symbols of chiefly authority. Pounamu trails were created to take stone from the West Coast over to the east coast of the island. From there pounamu was traded with other tribes, from the deep south to the far north of the country.
Around 1500 AD the ancestors of the Moriori people left the South Island and settled Rēkohu (the Chatham Islands), 800 kilometres east of New Zealand. They came up against the difficulties encountered by their Māori ancestors when settling the North and South islands in the 13th century: adjusting to a different climate and adopting new resources.
While it is possible that plants introduced to New Zealand by Polynesians – such as kūmara and taro – were taken to the Chathams, they did not survive. None of the plants brought from Polynesia could grow because of the overcast temperate climate. However the edible seed from the kopi (karaka tree), which may have been brought from New Zealand, was planted and grew.
While the kurī and the kiore may both have been taken to the islands, only the kiore survived. Kiore were commonly caught in broadleaf forest, especially in autumn.
The only other food sources Moriori could rely on came from the islands themselves and the surrounding ocean.
The plant foods eaten by Moriori were kernels from the kopi, small berries, nīkau buds and aruhe (bracken) fern root. Flax was used for clothing.
Shellfish were plentiful and inshore fish were caught using set nets. There were a number of freshwater fish, but eels were exploited the most.
Fur seals were common on the Chathams. There were breeding populations on the main islands and on offshore islets. Large seals lying on shore were the most plentiful and easily killed food resource available – they provided rich protein and fat, and their skins were also used for clothing. Occasionally, a pilot whale would be stranded, and leopard seals, sea lions and elephant seals were all taken if found locally.
The heaviest and most easily caught birds were the native pigeon, bellbird and tūī, found in broadleaf forest. Rails lived in bog shrublands and at the forest edge. Ducks were plentiful in large wetland areas and lakes, and were easily caught during their moulting season. There were 16 species of penguins and flying oceanic birds which went ashore on the Chathams to breed or moult. Fledglings were easy to catch and were taken in large numbers. Adult birds were seldom taken. Oceanic birds were available all year, but in larger numbers in winter and summer.
There were no large trees suitable for waka (canoes). The general lack of good-quality wood meant that Moriori adapted their waka design to the resources available. Moriori waka were more like rafts than canoes. They were made from flax stalks and wood from the māpou tree, with rimurapa (bull kelp) for flotation.
Obsidian from Tūhua (Mayor Island), Aotea (Great Barrier Island) and Rotorua–Taupō, and argillite from Nelson, have been located in the Chathams, and would have been taken over by the first settlers. Stone resources found and used on the island included Takatika grit, dolomite and chert.
Davidson, Janet. The prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul, 1987.
Prickett, Nigel, ed. The first thousand years: regional perspectives in New Zealand archaeology. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 1982. | 3,274 | ENGLISH | 1 |
It’s considered one of the best-kept historical secrets in the country–Partridge Island, also known as Canada’s Emerald Isle.
But unless you’ve got special permission from the Canadian Coast Guard, about the only way you’ll get a good look at this national and provincial historic site is through a pair of binoculars from the mainland in Saint John.
Located at the mouth of Saint John Harbour, this modest–approximately 24 acres–piece of real estate is connected to the mainland by an old stone breakwater. According to native legend, the great hero-god Glooscap had a hand in its creation when he used a club to smash a dam that had been built at the Reversing Falls, located some distance away. This event, according to the story, caused a chunk of the dam to be carried by the rushing water to the mouth of the harbour, and it explains why the Mi’kmaq name for the island is Quak’m’kagan’ik, or “a piece cut out.”
The Canadian Encyclopedia, which is published online by the Historica Foundation, points out among other facts that the island is some 300 million years old–a “volcanic ash deposit” that is now “sparsely covered by birch, spruce, willow and alder.”
Europeans learned of the island after French explorer Samuel de Champlain came ashore in the very early 1600s. Struck by the enormous abundance of ruffed grouse on the then heavily wooded island, it was named Île aux Perdrix or the Island of Partridges. In any event, the island was destined to play an important role in Canadian history.
Champlain’s Acadian descendants set up a “small base” on the shores of the island, and after the Loyalists arrived in 1783 and the City of Saint John was formed, it was quickly understood that the island’s location made it an ideal spot for navigational aids to safeguard passage into the harbour.
In the late 1780s, enabling legislation was passed by the New Brunswick legislature to build a lighthouse. It stipulated that levies on ships entering the harbour would pay to maintain the wooden structure. The Partridge Island lighthouse, built in 1791, was the first for New Brunswick, and the third to have been built in Canada up to that time. Located on the western tip, the lighthouse was manned by Captain Samuel Duffy, and it lasted until the early 1830s when it was consumed by fire. Back then, fossil fuels were used to create the source of light, and the burning of such fuels resulted in thick, black smoke. That meant that the lighthouse’s reflecting prisms had to be washed regularly, and the wicks kept trimmed.
Just as important as the creation of light for navigation, was the creation of sound. Foghorns were manually operated, and so when it got foggy the keeper himself would have to blow the horn.
Ship navigators were aided by the addition of a minute gun in 1801, but on Sept. 8, 1831, a better solution was at hand when a great bell–weighing 1,000 pounds–arrived aboard a ship from Liverpool, England. This giant fog bell was placed atop a huge tower and operated mechanically, but over time maintenance proved to be expensive.
Meanwhile, something revolutionary was in the wings, and Partridge Island would be the first in the world to put it into operation: the steam-powered fog alarm.
The inventor was Robert Foulis, an engineer and artist from Glasgow, Scotland, who moved to Canada in 1818 after his first wife died in childbirth. In 1822, while settled in Saint John, he was appointed deputy land surveyor, and was responsible for surveying the upper Saint John River to see if it would be suitable for steamship navigation. He later patented a gas light device for use in lighthouses.
Foulis developed the idea to build the revolutionary fog alarm–using a steam whistle–in the 1850s. He toiled away for several years, but could not interest the authorities in his work even after he submitted his plans to the Lighthouse Commissioners. He soon learned that a local engineer had built the device, based on his plans. He eventually won recognition as the inventor, and was credited for his work, but even though the device was in wide use, he never received a penny for the design, and was reported to have died in poverty in 1866.
Foulis’s invention was hailed as a marvel of its time, and reportedly “saved more ships and lives than any other navigational aid.” Unfortunately, there is no museum for this piece of history; the original Foulis alarm was reported to have found its way to a Saint John wharf where it remained unrecognized before it was believed to have been junked.
Today, the island has a light tower that was automated in 1989. However, before automation more than three dozen principal lighthouse keepers and assistants served mariners for nearly 200 years. Their duties were multifold, and some of them served a role as well with the Partridge Island quarantine and immigration station–the first in North America.
Quarantine stations were set up to control the spread of infectious diseases, including cholera, typhus, smallpox, scarlet fever, yellow fever and measles. They were located on designated islands close to land, such as Partridge Island, Middle Island in Miramichi, N.B., and the well-known Grosse Île located in the St. Lawrence River close to the port of Quebec.
After its establishment as a quarantine station as part of the incorporation charter of the City of Saint John in 1785, countless people passed through the Partridge Island checkpoint where they were subjected to a kerosene shower, followed by a hot water shower. Despite these tough measures, disease did–on occasion–spread to the mainland of Saint John, resulting in several hundreds of deaths.
Canada experienced a huge influx of European immigrants at the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, and many of these people found their way to New Brunswick. Remarkably, between 1819 and 1829 alone nearly 30,000 were inspected at the Partridge Island quarantine station. During the middle 1800s, the station’s personnel were tested beyond their limits when immigrants by the thousands arrived from Ireland, many of them seriously ill. Between 1812 and 1850 about 71 per cent of immigrants came from Ireland, earning Partridge Island the Canada’s Emerald Isle moniker.
Irish immigration peaked during 1845-47 because of the potato famine. In 1844, 2,000 Irish immigrants made their way to New Brunswick; 1845 saw 6,000 and that swelled in 1846 to 9,000 Irish immigrants. Most were destitute, and because they were already weak from starvation they were easy targets for typhus and other killer diseases. Some were sick even before they left Ireland. There were hospitals on the island, but they were too small to handle all of the sick.
Shipmasters were held accountable for their part though, and in 1846 there were 13 prosecutions and convictions before Saint John magistrates, the charge: overcrowded, poor quality ships, with insufficient provisions for passengers. Immigrants travelled in dark and often wet general storage areas of ships, becoming human cargo in rough crossings that lasted weeks. Many of those who died in transit were buried at sea by order of the ship’s captain, and sometimes this was used as an attempt by the captain to keep his vessel out of quarantine.
The year 1847 has been described as the worst–the Irish themselves called it “Black Forty-Seven.” The potato crop failed entirely that year, and tens of thousands left Ireland. A large percentage of them headed for British North America, and little Partridge Island received 15,000 during the summer, throwing the already over-burdened hospitals and other facilities into complete chaos. In June alone that year 35 vessels delivered 5,800 passengers to the island.
More than 2,000 died that summer, some 800 of them during the awful voyages, another 600 on the island itself and many others after they reached living quarters on the mainland. Those whose last breath was at the station, were received by the soil of Partridge Island in her graveyards of various faiths. Among the dead that summer was a young Saint John physician, Dr. James P. Collins who succumbed only three weeks after going to the island to help. He was just 23, and recently married.
Collins’s story is tragic, indeed, but he was not the only doctor on the island. George Harding and William Harding were two other physicians who suffered and could have easily died that summer from highly infectious disease.
On one occasion–when all of the doctors were sick–more than 40 bodies, which had been stored in the ‘dead house’ for burial, were placed in a mass grave. For years after, it was said that the spot was clearly distinguishable by “vivid green grass nourished by bones.” Clearly, the suffering on that little island must have been indescribable.
A cholera epidemic in the 1850s brought more hardship and death which spread from the island to the mainland. But despite the precautions that were taken, approximately 1,500 people died during the outbreak.
In the decades that followed, immigration was far less traumatic. The focus shifted to eastern Europe and Russia during the latter part of the century, and many Jewish families arrived in Saint John looking for a better way of life. Expansions to the station were carried out in the ensuing years until it was eventually closed altogether in 1941.
In 1927, a 40-foot Celtic Cross was erected in memory of the Irish whose deaths occurred in such great numbers that it was often difficult to keep tally. The memorial, which was rededicated in 1985, sits on a knoll overlooking the gravesite where many were laid to rest. Its builder, George McArthur, was buried at its base in 1932.
If Partridge Island proved herself pivotal in providing aid to mariners and opening her arms to immigrants, then she was just as convenient to help keep unwanted marine traffic out of the harbour. Her history in this regard spans nearly 150 years, beginning with the building of a wooden army barrack in 1800, so ordered by the Duke of Kent. It was the perfect location for a fort, given the island’s high cliffs.
The island again experienced fortification during the War of 1812–and continuously until after the Fenian Raids in 1866.
In 1858, under the directions of the “home government,” heavy calibre gun emplacements were added. More island defences were installed and manned during WW I, partly as a precaution against German submarines.
During the interwar years Partridge Island held little interest for the military, but in 1939 additional gun installations, underground powder magazines and observation posts were added, and the old quarantine station was fitted for military use. The threat of German submarine attack again served as the catalyst.
Although reinforced against even the most hostile (and foolhardy) invader, there was never a shot fired “in anger or defence” during those 150 years.
Eventually, the fighting men left, and immigrants seeking a new life passed by her shores.
The breakwater, connecting the island to the mainland, is there to control the powerful Bay of Fundy currents and tides that are present in the harbour. It is definitely not a causeway or a walking bridge. Its huge granite stones, some weighing more than 10 tons, look like they could be walked on, but anyone attempting that should know that many would-be adventurers have had to be rescued over the years. Unpredictable maritime weather can make the rocks slick, and huge gaps of several feet make for perilous footing. Access to the federally owned island–via the breakwater or by sea–is forbidden, with trespassers subject to penalty.
While the island no longer has permanent residents, it did–up until the late 1940s–support a tiny fishing community. Thankfully there are old photographs that show the different stages in the island’s history. Some of these capture modest moments in the lives of the people who lived there, including scenes of old houses, families with young children and a school.
Partridge Island is one of Canada’s best kept historical secrets.
This post has already been read 2769 times!Follow Us on Social Media | <urn:uuid:b908781b-c6eb-4c3a-bd54-f6f021e93df6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mynewbrunswick.ca/partridge-island/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00226.warc.gz | en | 0.984783 | 2,617 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.027969958260655403,
0.3188678026199341,
0.18567749857902527,
-0.04550030082464218,
0.19037817418575287,
0.05252557620406151,
0.24082832038402557,
0.26350200176239014,
-0.3362555503845215,
0.4714829921722412,
-0.04999929666519165,
-0.25962430238723755,
-0.09617194533348083,
0.42286941409... | 1 | It’s considered one of the best-kept historical secrets in the country–Partridge Island, also known as Canada’s Emerald Isle.
But unless you’ve got special permission from the Canadian Coast Guard, about the only way you’ll get a good look at this national and provincial historic site is through a pair of binoculars from the mainland in Saint John.
Located at the mouth of Saint John Harbour, this modest–approximately 24 acres–piece of real estate is connected to the mainland by an old stone breakwater. According to native legend, the great hero-god Glooscap had a hand in its creation when he used a club to smash a dam that had been built at the Reversing Falls, located some distance away. This event, according to the story, caused a chunk of the dam to be carried by the rushing water to the mouth of the harbour, and it explains why the Mi’kmaq name for the island is Quak’m’kagan’ik, or “a piece cut out.”
The Canadian Encyclopedia, which is published online by the Historica Foundation, points out among other facts that the island is some 300 million years old–a “volcanic ash deposit” that is now “sparsely covered by birch, spruce, willow and alder.”
Europeans learned of the island after French explorer Samuel de Champlain came ashore in the very early 1600s. Struck by the enormous abundance of ruffed grouse on the then heavily wooded island, it was named Île aux Perdrix or the Island of Partridges. In any event, the island was destined to play an important role in Canadian history.
Champlain’s Acadian descendants set up a “small base” on the shores of the island, and after the Loyalists arrived in 1783 and the City of Saint John was formed, it was quickly understood that the island’s location made it an ideal spot for navigational aids to safeguard passage into the harbour.
In the late 1780s, enabling legislation was passed by the New Brunswick legislature to build a lighthouse. It stipulated that levies on ships entering the harbour would pay to maintain the wooden structure. The Partridge Island lighthouse, built in 1791, was the first for New Brunswick, and the third to have been built in Canada up to that time. Located on the western tip, the lighthouse was manned by Captain Samuel Duffy, and it lasted until the early 1830s when it was consumed by fire. Back then, fossil fuels were used to create the source of light, and the burning of such fuels resulted in thick, black smoke. That meant that the lighthouse’s reflecting prisms had to be washed regularly, and the wicks kept trimmed.
Just as important as the creation of light for navigation, was the creation of sound. Foghorns were manually operated, and so when it got foggy the keeper himself would have to blow the horn.
Ship navigators were aided by the addition of a minute gun in 1801, but on Sept. 8, 1831, a better solution was at hand when a great bell–weighing 1,000 pounds–arrived aboard a ship from Liverpool, England. This giant fog bell was placed atop a huge tower and operated mechanically, but over time maintenance proved to be expensive.
Meanwhile, something revolutionary was in the wings, and Partridge Island would be the first in the world to put it into operation: the steam-powered fog alarm.
The inventor was Robert Foulis, an engineer and artist from Glasgow, Scotland, who moved to Canada in 1818 after his first wife died in childbirth. In 1822, while settled in Saint John, he was appointed deputy land surveyor, and was responsible for surveying the upper Saint John River to see if it would be suitable for steamship navigation. He later patented a gas light device for use in lighthouses.
Foulis developed the idea to build the revolutionary fog alarm–using a steam whistle–in the 1850s. He toiled away for several years, but could not interest the authorities in his work even after he submitted his plans to the Lighthouse Commissioners. He soon learned that a local engineer had built the device, based on his plans. He eventually won recognition as the inventor, and was credited for his work, but even though the device was in wide use, he never received a penny for the design, and was reported to have died in poverty in 1866.
Foulis’s invention was hailed as a marvel of its time, and reportedly “saved more ships and lives than any other navigational aid.” Unfortunately, there is no museum for this piece of history; the original Foulis alarm was reported to have found its way to a Saint John wharf where it remained unrecognized before it was believed to have been junked.
Today, the island has a light tower that was automated in 1989. However, before automation more than three dozen principal lighthouse keepers and assistants served mariners for nearly 200 years. Their duties were multifold, and some of them served a role as well with the Partridge Island quarantine and immigration station–the first in North America.
Quarantine stations were set up to control the spread of infectious diseases, including cholera, typhus, smallpox, scarlet fever, yellow fever and measles. They were located on designated islands close to land, such as Partridge Island, Middle Island in Miramichi, N.B., and the well-known Grosse Île located in the St. Lawrence River close to the port of Quebec.
After its establishment as a quarantine station as part of the incorporation charter of the City of Saint John in 1785, countless people passed through the Partridge Island checkpoint where they were subjected to a kerosene shower, followed by a hot water shower. Despite these tough measures, disease did–on occasion–spread to the mainland of Saint John, resulting in several hundreds of deaths.
Canada experienced a huge influx of European immigrants at the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, and many of these people found their way to New Brunswick. Remarkably, between 1819 and 1829 alone nearly 30,000 were inspected at the Partridge Island quarantine station. During the middle 1800s, the station’s personnel were tested beyond their limits when immigrants by the thousands arrived from Ireland, many of them seriously ill. Between 1812 and 1850 about 71 per cent of immigrants came from Ireland, earning Partridge Island the Canada’s Emerald Isle moniker.
Irish immigration peaked during 1845-47 because of the potato famine. In 1844, 2,000 Irish immigrants made their way to New Brunswick; 1845 saw 6,000 and that swelled in 1846 to 9,000 Irish immigrants. Most were destitute, and because they were already weak from starvation they were easy targets for typhus and other killer diseases. Some were sick even before they left Ireland. There were hospitals on the island, but they were too small to handle all of the sick.
Shipmasters were held accountable for their part though, and in 1846 there were 13 prosecutions and convictions before Saint John magistrates, the charge: overcrowded, poor quality ships, with insufficient provisions for passengers. Immigrants travelled in dark and often wet general storage areas of ships, becoming human cargo in rough crossings that lasted weeks. Many of those who died in transit were buried at sea by order of the ship’s captain, and sometimes this was used as an attempt by the captain to keep his vessel out of quarantine.
The year 1847 has been described as the worst–the Irish themselves called it “Black Forty-Seven.” The potato crop failed entirely that year, and tens of thousands left Ireland. A large percentage of them headed for British North America, and little Partridge Island received 15,000 during the summer, throwing the already over-burdened hospitals and other facilities into complete chaos. In June alone that year 35 vessels delivered 5,800 passengers to the island.
More than 2,000 died that summer, some 800 of them during the awful voyages, another 600 on the island itself and many others after they reached living quarters on the mainland. Those whose last breath was at the station, were received by the soil of Partridge Island in her graveyards of various faiths. Among the dead that summer was a young Saint John physician, Dr. James P. Collins who succumbed only three weeks after going to the island to help. He was just 23, and recently married.
Collins’s story is tragic, indeed, but he was not the only doctor on the island. George Harding and William Harding were two other physicians who suffered and could have easily died that summer from highly infectious disease.
On one occasion–when all of the doctors were sick–more than 40 bodies, which had been stored in the ‘dead house’ for burial, were placed in a mass grave. For years after, it was said that the spot was clearly distinguishable by “vivid green grass nourished by bones.” Clearly, the suffering on that little island must have been indescribable.
A cholera epidemic in the 1850s brought more hardship and death which spread from the island to the mainland. But despite the precautions that were taken, approximately 1,500 people died during the outbreak.
In the decades that followed, immigration was far less traumatic. The focus shifted to eastern Europe and Russia during the latter part of the century, and many Jewish families arrived in Saint John looking for a better way of life. Expansions to the station were carried out in the ensuing years until it was eventually closed altogether in 1941.
In 1927, a 40-foot Celtic Cross was erected in memory of the Irish whose deaths occurred in such great numbers that it was often difficult to keep tally. The memorial, which was rededicated in 1985, sits on a knoll overlooking the gravesite where many were laid to rest. Its builder, George McArthur, was buried at its base in 1932.
If Partridge Island proved herself pivotal in providing aid to mariners and opening her arms to immigrants, then she was just as convenient to help keep unwanted marine traffic out of the harbour. Her history in this regard spans nearly 150 years, beginning with the building of a wooden army barrack in 1800, so ordered by the Duke of Kent. It was the perfect location for a fort, given the island’s high cliffs.
The island again experienced fortification during the War of 1812–and continuously until after the Fenian Raids in 1866.
In 1858, under the directions of the “home government,” heavy calibre gun emplacements were added. More island defences were installed and manned during WW I, partly as a precaution against German submarines.
During the interwar years Partridge Island held little interest for the military, but in 1939 additional gun installations, underground powder magazines and observation posts were added, and the old quarantine station was fitted for military use. The threat of German submarine attack again served as the catalyst.
Although reinforced against even the most hostile (and foolhardy) invader, there was never a shot fired “in anger or defence” during those 150 years.
Eventually, the fighting men left, and immigrants seeking a new life passed by her shores.
The breakwater, connecting the island to the mainland, is there to control the powerful Bay of Fundy currents and tides that are present in the harbour. It is definitely not a causeway or a walking bridge. Its huge granite stones, some weighing more than 10 tons, look like they could be walked on, but anyone attempting that should know that many would-be adventurers have had to be rescued over the years. Unpredictable maritime weather can make the rocks slick, and huge gaps of several feet make for perilous footing. Access to the federally owned island–via the breakwater or by sea–is forbidden, with trespassers subject to penalty.
While the island no longer has permanent residents, it did–up until the late 1940s–support a tiny fishing community. Thankfully there are old photographs that show the different stages in the island’s history. Some of these capture modest moments in the lives of the people who lived there, including scenes of old houses, families with young children and a school.
Partridge Island is one of Canada’s best kept historical secrets.
This post has already been read 2769 times!Follow Us on Social Media | 2,711 | ENGLISH | 1 |
By Danielle DeSimone
For many Italian Americans, World War II was a difficult era.
The U.S. had declared war on their ancestral home, many were perceived as a national security threat and domestic sentiment towards citizens with Italian heritage was skeptical, at best. Despite all these challenges, more than half a million Italian Americans joined and proudly served in the U.S. Armed Forces during WWII.
In honor of Italian American Heritage Month this October, here are five Italian Americans you should know who made WWII history.
Perhaps the most well-known Italian American to serve in World War II, John Basilone was a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant made famous for his actions during the Battle of Guadalcanal and the Battle of Iwo Jima.
Originally from New Jersey, Basilone served three years in the Army before enlisting in in the Marine Corps. He was sent to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands where, in October 1942, Basilone’s unit was attacked by the Japanese.
Sgt. Basilone commanded two sections of machine guns for two straight days until only he and two other Marines were left standing. Still, Basilone held his position and maintained steady fire against the approaching Japanese. As supplies ran low, Basilone fought through open ground, coming under enemy fire, to resupply the machine gunners with ammunition. By the end of the battle on the second day, Basilone was holding off the Japanese forces with nothing but his pistol and his machete.
Later, Basilone was present for the first day of the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Japanese, who were in a fortified blockhouse, fired on U.S. Marines as they landed on the island. Basilone’s unit was pinned down, so he headed out alone, making his way around the side of the Japanese position until he was directly on top of the blockhouse, which he single-handedly destroyed with grenades and demolitions. Then, he fought his way through open ground to safely guide a Marine tank through an enemy mine field, all while under fire. During this effort he was killed by Japanese mortar shrapnel.
Basilone became the only enlisted Marine to be awarded both the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross for his extraordinary heroism in both battles, which secured the safety of his fellow Marines and the success of their mission.
Henry Mucci became a household name for his leadership during the rescue of the 513 survivors of the Bataan Death March.
A West Point graduate, Col. Mucci was serving in Hawaii and survived the attack on Pearl Harbor before joining the Army Rangers and eventually leading the liberation of the Cabanatuan Prison Camp.
There were only 48 hours to plan the liberation and no time to practice the logistics. Mucci had just 121 Rangers with him and they were outnumbered at least two-to-one. They also had the hefty goal of rescuing more than 500 prisoners of war (POWs). Still, Mucci led his men behind Japanese lines, following their Filipino guerilla guides as they trekked through the jungle to prepare for their attack.
On the evening of January 30, 1945, Mucci and the Rangers crawled towards the camp on their stomachs under the cover of darkness. When a P-61 Black Widow plane roared overhead, momentarily distracting the Japanese guards, Mucci and the Rangers launched a raid on the camp.
The American and Filipino guerilla forces fired on the Japanese guards while rushing to pull the POWs from the prisoner huts. Although most were wounded, ill and weak, the POWs managed to make their way out of the camp. Only two Army Rangers were lost in the firefight, and not a single prisoner of war was left behind.
Mucci was credited with instilling the discipline in his Ranger battalion that was necessary for the successful raid. He was nominated for a Medal of Honor and received the Distinguished Service Cross from Gen. Douglas MacArthur himself.
In 1941, Yogi Berra was just starting his professional baseball career and was on his way to play for the New York Yankees. Then, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and everything changed.
Unlike most players who chose to play baseball for the military during the war, Berra, who was only 18 and supposedly “tired of sitting around,” put his career on hold and enlisted in the Navy as a gunner’s mate.
After training, Berra headed overseas and crossed the English Channel on the USS Bayfield before stepping into a rocket boat (also known as a landing craft) and sailing towards France on one of the most important days in world history: D-Day.
Berra’s six-man boat was one of many that approached German fortifications at Normandy’s beaches that day. During the invasion, Berra manned the machine gun and rocket-launcher, providing support for soldiers and Marines landing on the beaches. A few months after D-Day, Berra also participated in Operation Dragoon (the invasion of southern France).
During his time in the military, Berra earned a Purple Heart, a Distinguished Unit Citation, two battle stars, a European Theatre of Operations ribbon and the Navy’s Lone Sailor Award. He would also, of course, go on to have a legendary professional baseball career.
Anthony P. Damato
Anthony P. Damato demonstrated the true values of a Marine while serving in World War II.
Originally from the small town of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, Damato enlisted in the Marine Corps exactly one month after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He took part in Operation Torch (the North Africa landings) and advanced in rank for his meritorious actions during the campaign.
Later in the war, Col. Damato headed to the Pacific Marshall Islands. While there, an enemy grenade was thrown into a foxhole where he and two other Marines were positioned. Without hesitation, Damato, who was only 21 years-old, immediately threw himself onto the enemy grenade, absorbing the explosion with his body. He died instantly and saved the lives of the other two Marines in the foxhole.
Damato was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor and the Purple Heart for his actions.
Gino J. Merli
Even though Gino J. Merli only served in the Army for two years during World War II, he saw plenty of action at D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge and – most famously – at a small Belgian town called Sars-la-Bruyere.
One evening in September 1944, Sgt. Merli’s company was patrolling a roadblock it had set up near Sars-la-Bruyere when they were suddenly attacked by approximately 100 German soldiers. Merli’s company was outnumbered in both men and firepower but continued to fight well into the night.
During the skirmish, the Germans repeatedly attempted to take out Merli’s gun emplacement. Thinking they’d succeeded, enemy soldiers approached Merli’s foxhole, finding what appeared to be the lifeless bodies of Merli and his assistant gunner. The Germans even stabbed Merli’s body a few times to ensure that he was actually dead, but Merli – who was very much alive – remained motionless through it all.
As soon as the Germans turned to leave, Merli leapt up and opened fire. He repeated this routine several times and even though his assistant gunner was eventually killed, Merli kept fighting all night. By daybreak, the Germans had asked for a truce. When American reinforcements found Merli, he was still at his gun with more than 50 enemy bodies in front of him.
Because he single-handedly caused significant damage to the enemy and put himself at great risk, he was awarded the Medal of Honor from President Truman. He also received two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star and the Battle of the Bulge Medal.
Merli would later become an outspoken advocate for veterans in Pennsylvania.
More from the USO
Jan 17, 2020
World War II "Rosies" Push to Receive the Congressional Gold Medal
World War II "Rosies" helped build the war machines their brothers, fathers and uncles would use to defeat the Germans and the Japanese. Now, they are pushing to collectively receive the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award, for their work work. | <urn:uuid:83ac031e-1c64-461d-8279-bc0e46a0dd9f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.uso.org/stories/2474-italian-americans-in-world-war-ii | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00015.warc.gz | en | 0.984381 | 1,729 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.5207948088645935,
0.6899210810661316,
0.18041260540485382,
-0.15847456455230713,
-0.6048357486724854,
0.07416895031929016,
0.24520105123519897,
0.18964436650276184,
-0.14095765352249146,
-0.19819244742393494,
0.08565424382686615,
0.05789390951395035,
0.32180750370025635,
0.5769367814064... | 1 | By Danielle DeSimone
For many Italian Americans, World War II was a difficult era.
The U.S. had declared war on their ancestral home, many were perceived as a national security threat and domestic sentiment towards citizens with Italian heritage was skeptical, at best. Despite all these challenges, more than half a million Italian Americans joined and proudly served in the U.S. Armed Forces during WWII.
In honor of Italian American Heritage Month this October, here are five Italian Americans you should know who made WWII history.
Perhaps the most well-known Italian American to serve in World War II, John Basilone was a Marine Corps gunnery sergeant made famous for his actions during the Battle of Guadalcanal and the Battle of Iwo Jima.
Originally from New Jersey, Basilone served three years in the Army before enlisting in in the Marine Corps. He was sent to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands where, in October 1942, Basilone’s unit was attacked by the Japanese.
Sgt. Basilone commanded two sections of machine guns for two straight days until only he and two other Marines were left standing. Still, Basilone held his position and maintained steady fire against the approaching Japanese. As supplies ran low, Basilone fought through open ground, coming under enemy fire, to resupply the machine gunners with ammunition. By the end of the battle on the second day, Basilone was holding off the Japanese forces with nothing but his pistol and his machete.
Later, Basilone was present for the first day of the Battle of Iwo Jima. The Japanese, who were in a fortified blockhouse, fired on U.S. Marines as they landed on the island. Basilone’s unit was pinned down, so he headed out alone, making his way around the side of the Japanese position until he was directly on top of the blockhouse, which he single-handedly destroyed with grenades and demolitions. Then, he fought his way through open ground to safely guide a Marine tank through an enemy mine field, all while under fire. During this effort he was killed by Japanese mortar shrapnel.
Basilone became the only enlisted Marine to be awarded both the Medal of Honor and the Navy Cross for his extraordinary heroism in both battles, which secured the safety of his fellow Marines and the success of their mission.
Henry Mucci became a household name for his leadership during the rescue of the 513 survivors of the Bataan Death March.
A West Point graduate, Col. Mucci was serving in Hawaii and survived the attack on Pearl Harbor before joining the Army Rangers and eventually leading the liberation of the Cabanatuan Prison Camp.
There were only 48 hours to plan the liberation and no time to practice the logistics. Mucci had just 121 Rangers with him and they were outnumbered at least two-to-one. They also had the hefty goal of rescuing more than 500 prisoners of war (POWs). Still, Mucci led his men behind Japanese lines, following their Filipino guerilla guides as they trekked through the jungle to prepare for their attack.
On the evening of January 30, 1945, Mucci and the Rangers crawled towards the camp on their stomachs under the cover of darkness. When a P-61 Black Widow plane roared overhead, momentarily distracting the Japanese guards, Mucci and the Rangers launched a raid on the camp.
The American and Filipino guerilla forces fired on the Japanese guards while rushing to pull the POWs from the prisoner huts. Although most were wounded, ill and weak, the POWs managed to make their way out of the camp. Only two Army Rangers were lost in the firefight, and not a single prisoner of war was left behind.
Mucci was credited with instilling the discipline in his Ranger battalion that was necessary for the successful raid. He was nominated for a Medal of Honor and received the Distinguished Service Cross from Gen. Douglas MacArthur himself.
In 1941, Yogi Berra was just starting his professional baseball career and was on his way to play for the New York Yankees. Then, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and everything changed.
Unlike most players who chose to play baseball for the military during the war, Berra, who was only 18 and supposedly “tired of sitting around,” put his career on hold and enlisted in the Navy as a gunner’s mate.
After training, Berra headed overseas and crossed the English Channel on the USS Bayfield before stepping into a rocket boat (also known as a landing craft) and sailing towards France on one of the most important days in world history: D-Day.
Berra’s six-man boat was one of many that approached German fortifications at Normandy’s beaches that day. During the invasion, Berra manned the machine gun and rocket-launcher, providing support for soldiers and Marines landing on the beaches. A few months after D-Day, Berra also participated in Operation Dragoon (the invasion of southern France).
During his time in the military, Berra earned a Purple Heart, a Distinguished Unit Citation, two battle stars, a European Theatre of Operations ribbon and the Navy’s Lone Sailor Award. He would also, of course, go on to have a legendary professional baseball career.
Anthony P. Damato
Anthony P. Damato demonstrated the true values of a Marine while serving in World War II.
Originally from the small town of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, Damato enlisted in the Marine Corps exactly one month after the attack on Pearl Harbor. He took part in Operation Torch (the North Africa landings) and advanced in rank for his meritorious actions during the campaign.
Later in the war, Col. Damato headed to the Pacific Marshall Islands. While there, an enemy grenade was thrown into a foxhole where he and two other Marines were positioned. Without hesitation, Damato, who was only 21 years-old, immediately threw himself onto the enemy grenade, absorbing the explosion with his body. He died instantly and saved the lives of the other two Marines in the foxhole.
Damato was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor and the Purple Heart for his actions.
Gino J. Merli
Even though Gino J. Merli only served in the Army for two years during World War II, he saw plenty of action at D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge and – most famously – at a small Belgian town called Sars-la-Bruyere.
One evening in September 1944, Sgt. Merli’s company was patrolling a roadblock it had set up near Sars-la-Bruyere when they were suddenly attacked by approximately 100 German soldiers. Merli’s company was outnumbered in both men and firepower but continued to fight well into the night.
During the skirmish, the Germans repeatedly attempted to take out Merli’s gun emplacement. Thinking they’d succeeded, enemy soldiers approached Merli’s foxhole, finding what appeared to be the lifeless bodies of Merli and his assistant gunner. The Germans even stabbed Merli’s body a few times to ensure that he was actually dead, but Merli – who was very much alive – remained motionless through it all.
As soon as the Germans turned to leave, Merli leapt up and opened fire. He repeated this routine several times and even though his assistant gunner was eventually killed, Merli kept fighting all night. By daybreak, the Germans had asked for a truce. When American reinforcements found Merli, he was still at his gun with more than 50 enemy bodies in front of him.
Because he single-handedly caused significant damage to the enemy and put himself at great risk, he was awarded the Medal of Honor from President Truman. He also received two Purple Hearts, the Bronze Star and the Battle of the Bulge Medal.
Merli would later become an outspoken advocate for veterans in Pennsylvania.
More from the USO
Jan 17, 2020
World War II "Rosies" Push to Receive the Congressional Gold Medal
World War II "Rosies" helped build the war machines their brothers, fathers and uncles would use to defeat the Germans and the Japanese. Now, they are pushing to collectively receive the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award, for their work work. | 1,709 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Changes in the Outlook of European People After 1500
Changes in the Outlook of European People After 1500 After 1500, the European people experienced numerous political, economic, and social changes. The emergence of the current Europe from 1500 -1648 brought a lot of changes such as political liberalization and the industrial revolution. Furthermore, Europe observed significant law reforms during this period. By the year 1500, most Europe areas were experiencing population growth. Commerce began to strengthen within Europe and the discoveries of new lands integrated it into a world economic system. Through the various phases of history, the European people experienced changes in their work, family, and the political arena.
In his book, Perry et al. show that the European people had discoveries of new lands, which were rich in various commodities. These commodities were exported to Europe, and this enhanced the material life of its people. The people also discovered new and better ways of organizing production, and this enhanced both trade and production of goods where entrepreneurs manipulated a lot of money. It was during the 16th century that western capitalism entered the maturity stage, and capital was the main item in political life, economic organization, and international relations. The expansion of economy during this time was as a result of great changes that were on the pipeline before 1500 and was able to achieve a technological advantage over other civilized nations.
Get a Price Quote:
People began to change their actions and the way they viewed themselves and the world due to the emergence of new values, which were associated with the early reformation. Social changes were also prevalent on the European people. With the small population, foodstuff became cheaper, and people were able to use their earnings to get balanced diets, which included beverages and meat. The people who lived in the rural areas were able to purchase processed products from the cities, hence promoting the economy of the urban areas. Cities began to grow slowly, and the number of city dwellers increased and by 1600, 7.6 % of the European population lived in urban centres. Also, bigger cities started coming up and were mainly used as administrative or capital centres. The increasing population in the urban areas during the late 16th century led to what was traditionally called ‘ownership of an estate.’ The estate had two parts, one for the landlord’s demesne and the peasants’ farms. The peasants worked for little wages compared to other labourers in the urban areas.
The rise of Capitalism saw Europe experience financial problems and occasionally becoming bankrupt. This situation exposed the poor people in the society. In the 16th century, there was a great inflation that was highly felt through monetary degradation. This, however, did not last long as new precious metals were ejected to the market. The inflation fuelled the economy and pressurized people who wanted to maintain their initial living standards to take an active economic position. Due to the low-interest rates, the entrepreneurs took the advantage to make big profits.
In regard to politics, the centralized states demanded new measures of cultural conventionality for their citizens. Jews were expelled from many states, and many of them did not bear with religious rebels. A princely court was formed by the state, and it became the main buyer of war weapons. The prince had authority in appointing various individual and making pension grants. All these were made in an attempt to maintain political power at both the state and international levels.
The major changes that were observed socially were the status of women and marriage age. In the previous centuries, women were considered domestic workers with little economic power. On the other hand, men were seen as the head of the family, husband, or father and were the main beneficiaries of their labour. Women got marriage at a tender age and were married off to mature men. This changed in the 16th century, and people started getting church weddings and both bride and groom were of almost same mature age. This ensured that the couple would become close friends and a spouse, which was not easily achieved when the couple had a big gap in their age differences. In the 19th century. The European people experienced another massive change in their social lives. They felt that the aspects of their day-to-day lives were changing, and the kind of jobs they did were being redefined.
People who were paid wages experienced a decline in the autonomy of their jobs and people worked under instructions from others. Rules were set up in textile factories, and workers were urged to report to work on time, and to remain in their workstation as a long as they are still at work. Enforcement of such rules was carried out by foremen who worked as mediators between the workers and the factory owners. As the work became fast, working hours were extended, and many workers who were mainly women and children suffered because they had to walk for long distances to the factories and the workstations were risky with machines posing a danger or getting hurt.
During this period, the middle-class people who were mostly factory owners and professionals came up with work ethic, which considered work as a fundamental human good such that a person who works would automatically prosper and vice versa. Most schools began to teach about the need to work and condemned laziness. These shifts in the context of work had an essential consequence on leisure, and many middle-class people became uncomfortable when out of the job. As a result, they tried to redefine their tastes for leisure to achieve personal empowerment and to strengthen their family bonds.
Families began to spend their free time reading and girls were advised to learn how to play piano since music played a major role in reuniting families. Through the piano lessons, many women became musicians, and cultural events became common under the sponsorship of the newly wealthy people. These middle-class people also participated in night courses and public lectures that were seen to bring in new skills in management and applied sciences. Pressures from middle-class people changed the leisure habits in the urban areas. Workers had little time and resources to allow them to play although most of them could opt to have free time than work in the factories. Some popular leisure activities such as gambling and animal fighting were done away with in an attempt to bring order in the urban areas. Throughout this period, leisure activities were redefined, and people started to participate in more respectable pastime activities where professionals were hired to entertain them and make them feel relaxed.
Family life changed as work moved from a home setting to an industrial setting where the family was no longer a production unit. Gender roles began to be redefined, and the men became the breadwinners, and the older children helped them in their businesses. Most working class families had the women work from as early as their teenage years until several years into their marriage. Many women in the city did domestic jobs in middle-class homes. With the effects on the daily life patterns of people, economic changes in Europe started to shift its social structure and antagonism among the social classes in the urban areas begun to develop. Many of the middle-class people criticized how new factory owners worked for profit. Casual workers began to undermine one another based on their level of literacy and traditional prestige. Those who earned good wages started living a lifestyle that reflected those of the middle-class people by purchasing musical instruments and enrolling in academic institutions. This social difference led the middle-class people to relocate to more spacious places away from slums and tougher government laws enacted to enable the physically fit people to work and stop begging. The middle-class people also participated in political protests to fight for new rights against monopoly.
Enhancement of technology in the 19th century was accelerated by the availability of more skilled workforce. During this period, more people accessed education, and the number of those enrolling in higher education had significantly increased. Women were at this time able to access the job opportunities that were initially seen to be men-oriented. Class difference declined greatly, and people were able to share leisure activities. The occurrence of First World War, which saw the death of more than five hundred thousand men greatly impacted its population, which subsequently affected the workforce. After the war and the end of Influenza epidemic, there was a shortage of men in all European countries. During the war, women were recruited to work in the civilian workforce so as to encourage them to feel liberated. The division of Europe into cultural, ethnic, and linguistic states led to the dissatisfaction of people who were separated from the others. Most of them felt that they became the minorities, and this was the beginning of instability that existed after the First World War.
According to Campbell, the Second World War had significant economic impacts to Europe, and many global organizations and institutions worked together to ensure that they replace the old diplomacy with multilateral institutions. After this war, many European people had the urge to return to normalcy where law and order would be restored. They thought of returning prisoners to their families and make soldiers mobile. However, many people were eager to achieve change where a new and just society would be brought to life in areas where people had pledged to work towards attaining peace. The collaboration of U.S among other continents to save the economy of Europe made a great impact that brought it to prosperity.
In conclusion, the journey of the European people through different historical periods is remarkable. The people have moved from all economic upheavals during 1500 to the 20th century. Women have transformed from casual labours to political office bearers and child labour abolished. Only children who were considered old enough helped their fathers in their workplaces. History has shown the economic ups and downs that Europe faced and the subsequent impacts its people experienced regarding changes in their lifestyles.
Buy custom Changes in the Outlook of European People After 1500 essay
|← American Constitution as a Guide in Addressing Modern Issues||Child Obesity →| | <urn:uuid:038c6050-2a31-4fcd-9fe1-b1516664f76c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://prime-essay.net/samples/Analysis/outlook-of-european-people-essay.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00086.warc.gz | en | 0.98885 | 1,980 | 3.71875 | 4 | [
-0.23411427438259125,
-0.07390956580638885,
0.3653419613838196,
-0.08184859901666641,
0.20704767107963562,
-0.0860166922211647,
-0.159433975815773,
0.1860530972480774,
-0.08236709237098694,
0.35378655791282654,
0.3177999258041382,
-0.19571013748645782,
-0.2665814757347107,
-0.3541379868984... | 4 | Changes in the Outlook of European People After 1500
Changes in the Outlook of European People After 1500 After 1500, the European people experienced numerous political, economic, and social changes. The emergence of the current Europe from 1500 -1648 brought a lot of changes such as political liberalization and the industrial revolution. Furthermore, Europe observed significant law reforms during this period. By the year 1500, most Europe areas were experiencing population growth. Commerce began to strengthen within Europe and the discoveries of new lands integrated it into a world economic system. Through the various phases of history, the European people experienced changes in their work, family, and the political arena.
In his book, Perry et al. show that the European people had discoveries of new lands, which were rich in various commodities. These commodities were exported to Europe, and this enhanced the material life of its people. The people also discovered new and better ways of organizing production, and this enhanced both trade and production of goods where entrepreneurs manipulated a lot of money. It was during the 16th century that western capitalism entered the maturity stage, and capital was the main item in political life, economic organization, and international relations. The expansion of economy during this time was as a result of great changes that were on the pipeline before 1500 and was able to achieve a technological advantage over other civilized nations.
Get a Price Quote:
People began to change their actions and the way they viewed themselves and the world due to the emergence of new values, which were associated with the early reformation. Social changes were also prevalent on the European people. With the small population, foodstuff became cheaper, and people were able to use their earnings to get balanced diets, which included beverages and meat. The people who lived in the rural areas were able to purchase processed products from the cities, hence promoting the economy of the urban areas. Cities began to grow slowly, and the number of city dwellers increased and by 1600, 7.6 % of the European population lived in urban centres. Also, bigger cities started coming up and were mainly used as administrative or capital centres. The increasing population in the urban areas during the late 16th century led to what was traditionally called ‘ownership of an estate.’ The estate had two parts, one for the landlord’s demesne and the peasants’ farms. The peasants worked for little wages compared to other labourers in the urban areas.
The rise of Capitalism saw Europe experience financial problems and occasionally becoming bankrupt. This situation exposed the poor people in the society. In the 16th century, there was a great inflation that was highly felt through monetary degradation. This, however, did not last long as new precious metals were ejected to the market. The inflation fuelled the economy and pressurized people who wanted to maintain their initial living standards to take an active economic position. Due to the low-interest rates, the entrepreneurs took the advantage to make big profits.
In regard to politics, the centralized states demanded new measures of cultural conventionality for their citizens. Jews were expelled from many states, and many of them did not bear with religious rebels. A princely court was formed by the state, and it became the main buyer of war weapons. The prince had authority in appointing various individual and making pension grants. All these were made in an attempt to maintain political power at both the state and international levels.
The major changes that were observed socially were the status of women and marriage age. In the previous centuries, women were considered domestic workers with little economic power. On the other hand, men were seen as the head of the family, husband, or father and were the main beneficiaries of their labour. Women got marriage at a tender age and were married off to mature men. This changed in the 16th century, and people started getting church weddings and both bride and groom were of almost same mature age. This ensured that the couple would become close friends and a spouse, which was not easily achieved when the couple had a big gap in their age differences. In the 19th century. The European people experienced another massive change in their social lives. They felt that the aspects of their day-to-day lives were changing, and the kind of jobs they did were being redefined.
People who were paid wages experienced a decline in the autonomy of their jobs and people worked under instructions from others. Rules were set up in textile factories, and workers were urged to report to work on time, and to remain in their workstation as a long as they are still at work. Enforcement of such rules was carried out by foremen who worked as mediators between the workers and the factory owners. As the work became fast, working hours were extended, and many workers who were mainly women and children suffered because they had to walk for long distances to the factories and the workstations were risky with machines posing a danger or getting hurt.
During this period, the middle-class people who were mostly factory owners and professionals came up with work ethic, which considered work as a fundamental human good such that a person who works would automatically prosper and vice versa. Most schools began to teach about the need to work and condemned laziness. These shifts in the context of work had an essential consequence on leisure, and many middle-class people became uncomfortable when out of the job. As a result, they tried to redefine their tastes for leisure to achieve personal empowerment and to strengthen their family bonds.
Families began to spend their free time reading and girls were advised to learn how to play piano since music played a major role in reuniting families. Through the piano lessons, many women became musicians, and cultural events became common under the sponsorship of the newly wealthy people. These middle-class people also participated in night courses and public lectures that were seen to bring in new skills in management and applied sciences. Pressures from middle-class people changed the leisure habits in the urban areas. Workers had little time and resources to allow them to play although most of them could opt to have free time than work in the factories. Some popular leisure activities such as gambling and animal fighting were done away with in an attempt to bring order in the urban areas. Throughout this period, leisure activities were redefined, and people started to participate in more respectable pastime activities where professionals were hired to entertain them and make them feel relaxed.
Family life changed as work moved from a home setting to an industrial setting where the family was no longer a production unit. Gender roles began to be redefined, and the men became the breadwinners, and the older children helped them in their businesses. Most working class families had the women work from as early as their teenage years until several years into their marriage. Many women in the city did domestic jobs in middle-class homes. With the effects on the daily life patterns of people, economic changes in Europe started to shift its social structure and antagonism among the social classes in the urban areas begun to develop. Many of the middle-class people criticized how new factory owners worked for profit. Casual workers began to undermine one another based on their level of literacy and traditional prestige. Those who earned good wages started living a lifestyle that reflected those of the middle-class people by purchasing musical instruments and enrolling in academic institutions. This social difference led the middle-class people to relocate to more spacious places away from slums and tougher government laws enacted to enable the physically fit people to work and stop begging. The middle-class people also participated in political protests to fight for new rights against monopoly.
Enhancement of technology in the 19th century was accelerated by the availability of more skilled workforce. During this period, more people accessed education, and the number of those enrolling in higher education had significantly increased. Women were at this time able to access the job opportunities that were initially seen to be men-oriented. Class difference declined greatly, and people were able to share leisure activities. The occurrence of First World War, which saw the death of more than five hundred thousand men greatly impacted its population, which subsequently affected the workforce. After the war and the end of Influenza epidemic, there was a shortage of men in all European countries. During the war, women were recruited to work in the civilian workforce so as to encourage them to feel liberated. The division of Europe into cultural, ethnic, and linguistic states led to the dissatisfaction of people who were separated from the others. Most of them felt that they became the minorities, and this was the beginning of instability that existed after the First World War.
According to Campbell, the Second World War had significant economic impacts to Europe, and many global organizations and institutions worked together to ensure that they replace the old diplomacy with multilateral institutions. After this war, many European people had the urge to return to normalcy where law and order would be restored. They thought of returning prisoners to their families and make soldiers mobile. However, many people were eager to achieve change where a new and just society would be brought to life in areas where people had pledged to work towards attaining peace. The collaboration of U.S among other continents to save the economy of Europe made a great impact that brought it to prosperity.
In conclusion, the journey of the European people through different historical periods is remarkable. The people have moved from all economic upheavals during 1500 to the 20th century. Women have transformed from casual labours to political office bearers and child labour abolished. Only children who were considered old enough helped their fathers in their workplaces. History has shown the economic ups and downs that Europe faced and the subsequent impacts its people experienced regarding changes in their lifestyles.
Buy custom Changes in the Outlook of European People After 1500 essay
|← American Constitution as a Guide in Addressing Modern Issues||Child Obesity →| | 1,999 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Watergate scandal was a scandal during and after the 1972 Presidential Election.
United States President and Republican Richard Nixon was running for election against Democrat George McGovern. Frank Wills, a security guard, discovered clues that former FBI and CIA agents broke into the offices of the Democratic Party and George McGovern months before the election. These people listened to phone lines and secret papers were stolen.
When these men were found, it turned out that Nixon was involved and he had helped them cover it all up and might have even hired the men. The Washington Post was a newspaper which played a big role in exposing the misdoings, specifically reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. This showed the public that Nixon was not to be trusted, and society began to view him in a different light.
Nixon chose to resign from office on August 9, 1974 because he wished to not be impeached. This means that he might have been charged with crimes. The U.S. Congress could not impeach him if he resigned. After this, Gerald Ford, his vice-president, became the President by default. Ford later forgave and pardoned Nixon for all of his crimes. The name "Watergate" comes from the hotel in Washington, D.C. where the first crime took place and is often associated with political scandals. He was stealing information and abusing his presidential power to try to stay in office. | <urn:uuid:c4bc7d24-9e2a-4fff-8f87-386784b230b2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00306.warc.gz | en | 0.990615 | 283 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
0.10341677814722061,
0.20502564311027527,
0.3792453110218048,
-0.007791508454829454,
0.04856054484844208,
0.4861798882484436,
0.3405536711215973,
-0.30276575684547424,
0.37541452050209045,
0.2587960660457611,
0.16407500207424164,
0.5910288095474243,
-0.04035693407058716,
0.1785817742347717... | 2 | The Watergate scandal was a scandal during and after the 1972 Presidential Election.
United States President and Republican Richard Nixon was running for election against Democrat George McGovern. Frank Wills, a security guard, discovered clues that former FBI and CIA agents broke into the offices of the Democratic Party and George McGovern months before the election. These people listened to phone lines and secret papers were stolen.
When these men were found, it turned out that Nixon was involved and he had helped them cover it all up and might have even hired the men. The Washington Post was a newspaper which played a big role in exposing the misdoings, specifically reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. This showed the public that Nixon was not to be trusted, and society began to view him in a different light.
Nixon chose to resign from office on August 9, 1974 because he wished to not be impeached. This means that he might have been charged with crimes. The U.S. Congress could not impeach him if he resigned. After this, Gerald Ford, his vice-president, became the President by default. Ford later forgave and pardoned Nixon for all of his crimes. The name "Watergate" comes from the hotel in Washington, D.C. where the first crime took place and is often associated with political scandals. He was stealing information and abusing his presidential power to try to stay in office. | 287 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the 11th century five ports in the south east of England (‘cinque ports’ in Norman French) banded together in a confederation designed for mutual protection, for coastal defence, and for the furtherance of their trade. They were Hastings, Romney, Hythe, Dover and Sandwich.
Monarchs offered them rights and in return the ports supplied ships and sailors. They provided a packet boat service – perhaps even as early as the reign of Edward the Confessor – for which they were paid not in cash but by the granting of certain privileges, most of which had a financial value. The duties and the privileges of the five ports grew with the years and their heyday came in the 13th century, by which time the ‘Ancient Towns’ of Winchelsea and Rye had been added to their number. The title ‘Cinque Ports’ remained although there were now seven of them.
The first Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Constable of Dover Castle was appointed in 1150. Subsequent notable holders of this office include the Duke of Wellington, Sir Winston Churchill and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.
By the 1200s King John was able to start using a ready-formed Cinque Ports fleet. In return for more and more privileges, the ports provided an agreed number of ships each year, fully manned and maintained for an agreed period.
At first alone, and later in conjunction with growing naval forces, this fleet kept control of the English Channel. They may have had successes and failures. They certainly loved piracy and private wars and feuded with the ships of other English towns. Nonetheless, the Cinque Ports fleet filled a vital gap in the kingdom’s defences for many decades. | <urn:uuid:272638a4-6502-4162-a230-4ce20eebf700> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.winchelsea.com/the-town-story/history/cinque-ports/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00203.warc.gz | en | 0.980871 | 356 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.13520251214504242,
-0.1790524274110794,
0.4166601598262787,
-0.47493240237236023,
-0.17470034956932068,
-0.0806894451379776,
0.07702305167913437,
-0.040899667888879776,
-0.105901338160038,
-0.3382510244846344,
-0.09311788529157639,
-0.3242023289203644,
-0.005876725073903799,
0.280757129... | 23 | In the 11th century five ports in the south east of England (‘cinque ports’ in Norman French) banded together in a confederation designed for mutual protection, for coastal defence, and for the furtherance of their trade. They were Hastings, Romney, Hythe, Dover and Sandwich.
Monarchs offered them rights and in return the ports supplied ships and sailors. They provided a packet boat service – perhaps even as early as the reign of Edward the Confessor – for which they were paid not in cash but by the granting of certain privileges, most of which had a financial value. The duties and the privileges of the five ports grew with the years and their heyday came in the 13th century, by which time the ‘Ancient Towns’ of Winchelsea and Rye had been added to their number. The title ‘Cinque Ports’ remained although there were now seven of them.
The first Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and Constable of Dover Castle was appointed in 1150. Subsequent notable holders of this office include the Duke of Wellington, Sir Winston Churchill and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.
By the 1200s King John was able to start using a ready-formed Cinque Ports fleet. In return for more and more privileges, the ports provided an agreed number of ships each year, fully manned and maintained for an agreed period.
At first alone, and later in conjunction with growing naval forces, this fleet kept control of the English Channel. They may have had successes and failures. They certainly loved piracy and private wars and feuded with the ships of other English towns. Nonetheless, the Cinque Ports fleet filled a vital gap in the kingdom’s defences for many decades. | 357 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Elizabeth of York (February 11, 1466 - February 11, 1503), queen consort of Henry VII of England 1486-1503, was born at Westminster, the eldest child of King Edward IV of England and his queen (who both had children from earlier relationships). Following her father's death and the accession to the throne of his brother Richard III of England, scurrilous rumours circulated that Richard intended to marry her as soon as his wife, the ailing Anne Neville, was dead. There is no surviving evidence for such a plan, although Sir George Buck later claimed to have uncovered a letter from Elizabeth (now lost) which showed she was party to it. It has been suggested that the rumours were started by Elizabeth's mother Elizabeth Woodville as part of her campaign to put her daughter on the throne; if Richard had been able to obtain a dispensation from the church to marry his niece, it would have prevented her marrying the chief threat to his throne, Henry Tudor.
It was a relatively successful marriage, all things considered. They had seven (or possibly eight, but only seven are shown in the commemorative picture painted in about 1509) children, but Elizabeth, Edmund, and Catherine died at or shortly after birth. The eldest son and heir to the throne, Arthur, Prince of Wales, died in 1502 (after marrying Catherine of Aragon a daughter of the king of Spain), and this seems to have been the motive for Elizabeth to become pregnant the last time, in order to strengthen the succession. Elizabeth died, on her 37th birthday, a few days after giving birth to her last child, a daughter, who also died. Her second son Henry followed his father as king, Margaret married the king of Scotland, and Mary married the king of France. | <urn:uuid:08f5055a-3efc-43da-bfda-d6e4c5a803b1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://infomutt.com/e/el/elizabeth_of_york.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00490.warc.gz | en | 0.993403 | 364 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.2968873083591461,
0.16428427398204803,
0.43724167346954346,
0.026623085141181946,
-0.2540905773639679,
0.10568827390670776,
-0.11390329897403717,
-0.01807965338230133,
0.08534040302038193,
-0.1171153113245964,
-0.30374640226364136,
-0.4749811291694641,
0.055137284100055695,
0.2428579032... | 4 | Elizabeth of York (February 11, 1466 - February 11, 1503), queen consort of Henry VII of England 1486-1503, was born at Westminster, the eldest child of King Edward IV of England and his queen (who both had children from earlier relationships). Following her father's death and the accession to the throne of his brother Richard III of England, scurrilous rumours circulated that Richard intended to marry her as soon as his wife, the ailing Anne Neville, was dead. There is no surviving evidence for such a plan, although Sir George Buck later claimed to have uncovered a letter from Elizabeth (now lost) which showed she was party to it. It has been suggested that the rumours were started by Elizabeth's mother Elizabeth Woodville as part of her campaign to put her daughter on the throne; if Richard had been able to obtain a dispensation from the church to marry his niece, it would have prevented her marrying the chief threat to his throne, Henry Tudor.
It was a relatively successful marriage, all things considered. They had seven (or possibly eight, but only seven are shown in the commemorative picture painted in about 1509) children, but Elizabeth, Edmund, and Catherine died at or shortly after birth. The eldest son and heir to the throne, Arthur, Prince of Wales, died in 1502 (after marrying Catherine of Aragon a daughter of the king of Spain), and this seems to have been the motive for Elizabeth to become pregnant the last time, in order to strengthen the succession. Elizabeth died, on her 37th birthday, a few days after giving birth to her last child, a daughter, who also died. Her second son Henry followed his father as king, Margaret married the king of Scotland, and Mary married the king of France. | 384 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Cardinal Richelieu had one simple foreign policy aim – to fight for France’s interests by whatever measures were needed. As a loyal servant to Louis XIII, Richelieu wanted France to be the dominant power in Europe and give Louis the status Richelieu felt he deserved. When deciding foreign policy and what was best for France, Richelieu took little notice of religious considerations. His time in power saw him, a Cardinal, ally with Protestant Sweden in the Thirty Years War and act as a bulwark against Catholic Spain. He was against Habsburg encirclement, yet the Holy Roman Emperor was still technically the temporal defender of the Catholic Church. For him, politics were a separate entity from religion. What Richelieu wanted for France, he got regardless of such issues as religion.
France and Northern Italy:
However, Richelieu’s plans for European domination were dependant on one thing – peace and stability at home. In 1624-25, he sent French troops to support the Grisons in their fight against the Austrians and to hinder the Spanish who were using the Valtelline to move troops south to north across Europe. these Spanish troops moved far too near to the French border for Richelieu’s liking – so any opportunity to harass them was taken. However, the Huguenot revolt at La Rochelle in 1625, forced Richelieu to call back French troops and this campaign came to an end due to internal problems. This was a trend that was to tie the hands of Richelieu.
Once the Grace of Alais ended the Huguenot issue, Richelieu could concentrate on northern Italy. In 1629, France had conquered Savoy and one year later, France captured Pinerolo in Piedmont. In the favourable Treaty of Cherasco of 1631, France kept the strategically important Pinerolo. By keeping Pinerolo, Richelieu committed France to a long term campaign as the Spanish would not tolerate a French presence in northern Italy for long and the area had to be patrolled by French soldiers. Richelieu wrote to Louis XIII:
|(Give) up all thought of rest, or economising, and of putting right the internal affairs of the kingdom.”|
Richelieu’s siding against the Spanish lead to his final clash with the dévot Marie de Madici. However, any input into northern Italy by France after 1631 was not successful. First the main and important part of the war took place in Germany; by the mid-1630’s, northern Italy had ceased to be as important as it was. In 1635, the French took control of the Valtelline but the Spanish regained it in 1637. In September 1640, the French took Turin but by that date, it was a paper-thin victory.
However, the campaign in north Italy does show how Richelieu’s mind worked. The man who lead the French to victory in 1635 was Rohan – the Huguenot leader who had lead the rebellion against the government at La Rochelle!
France and Germany:
Richelieu’s preoccupation with northern Italy meant that any French involvement in Germany was kept to a diplomatic and financial level up to 1635. Richelieu must have also known that most armies fighting in central Europe were of a much higher quality than the Spanish armies in northern Italy. Richelieu knew that the French army was not yet ready for a campaign in central Europe. Most of the armies fighting in the Thirty Years War had had a number of years experience in modern fighting techniques. France did not.
Again, in his dealings in central Europe, Richelieu showed that religion was not a barrier. In the war against Spain and Austria, he allied Catholic France with Protestant Holland in 1624. Just one year later the Huguenots in La Rochelle were to be in all out rebellion against Richelieu’s government but the alliance with Holland stood firm.
France also played a central part in the formulation of a coalition that included Denmark, Holland, England and Frederick of the Palatinate who allied against the might of the Holy Roman Emperor. All were Protestant states.
However, Richelieu’s most important contribution was to ally to a state in which it was illegal to be a Catholic – Sweden. In the Treaty of Altmark (1629), Richelieu negotiated the end of war between Sweden and Poland. In 1631, Sweden and France signed the Treaty of Bärwalde by which Sweden would keep an army in Germany that would be financed by France. The decided amount was 400,000 thaler a year for five years. Sweden’s military impact in Europe during the Thirty Years War ensured Gustavus Adolphus a place in history.
As the war progressed, Richelieu built up a large network of allies that was to include the Electors of Bavaria, Trier and Cologne, Murad IV (Sultan of Turkey), and on occasions Pope Urban VIII. Though this seems like an impressive list, it was extremely hard for Richelieu to manage it. Simple distance and communication problems made his task all but impossible and it also excluded disloyalty and those prepared to offer their services elsewhere if they felt that the money was better! Probably the most difficult ally Richelieu had was Gustavus of Sweden. His sweep through to the south-west of Germany (against the wishes of Richelieu) forced Maximillian of Bavaria back to the side of the Emperor after Richelieu had spent time cultivating his friendship. The death of Gustavus in 1632 ended this problem.
Oxenstierna formulated the League of Heilbronn after the death of Gustavus. However, it was Richelieu who influenced it not Oxenstierna and French subsidies were paid into the League’s coffers and not to Sweden. However, the defeat of Sweden at the Battle of Nördlingen in 1634, gave Richelieu no alternative but to militarily involve France as there was no other alternate ‘power’ who could do the same. However, in 1635, France was not ready for war so Richelieu tried to achieve success at a diplomatic level while his military was being developed.
Richelieu renewed his alliance with Holland for a joint attack on the Spanish Netherlands. The alliance with Sweden was renewed for another three years. Richelieu rallied Savoy, Parma and Mantua into an alliance to attack Milan in July 1635. He took under his wing Bernard, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, the successful military commander of the Swedish army. But for all this activity, France was not safe.
In 1636, an Austrian army marched into Burgundy and Franche Comté. A Spanish army based in the Spanish Netherlands invaded France and got as far as Corbie near the cathedral city of Amiens. The people of Paris panicked as they were only 50 miles away but both Louis XIII and Richelieu held firm and maintained some form of stability in the city. Probably military logic told them that the Spanish army was hopelessly overstretched at Corbie and that it would have to retreat. They were right.
By 1637, the small but modern French army was ready to take to the field. Its two principal commanders were Turenne and d’Enghien. The Dutch attacked the Spanish from the north in the Spanish Netherlands, while the French attacked from the south. The region of Artois had been captured by 1640. The Spanish army was severely beaten by a French army at Rocroi in 1643 – just 5 months after the death of Richelieu.
In 1638, Bernard of Saxe-Weimar took Breisach. This was an important city to take as it was the gateway the French needed to get into Germany. It also cut in half the Spanish Road so Spanish troops in the Spanish Netherlands could not be supplied by land and a sea supply route was fraught with danger. In 1639 Bernard died. Ironically, this proved useful to Richelieu as Bernard had become more and more difficult to control as he became more successful. Richelieu bought Bernard’s army and the land which it had occupied!
In 1638, Richelieu signed the Treaty of Hamburg with Sweden which gave Sweden a subsidy of 1 million livres a year to help pay for a campaign in Germany. With this in hand, the French and Swedes made deep inroads into Germany.
With Spain, Richelieu had to ward off a Spanish invasion via the Pyrenees. Once this was done, France invaded Spain though with no success. Just before Richelieu’s death, the French captured Roussillon, a Spanish province north of the Pyrenees but an attack on Catalonia was unsuccessful.
By his death, Richelieu had all but removed the threat of the Spanish; he had been responsible for creating a modernised army and navy and France had captured strategic cities in western Europe. Richelieu had done what he had intended to do – make France a serious ‘player’ in European affairs, a nation to be reckoned with.
- When Richelieu became chief minister in 1624, he was very aware that the navy of France was weak. This became even more apparent during his… | <urn:uuid:85a6ddb2-8c70-43d1-96ed-45c31e064028> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/france-in-the-seventeenth-century/richelieu-and-foreign-policy/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00485.warc.gz | en | 0.985484 | 1,940 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
-0.3380708396434784,
0.45948678255081177,
-0.23139050602912903,
-0.7470537424087524,
-0.058621589094400406,
-0.04048125445842743,
-0.06922964751720428,
0.47740328311920166,
0.3806719481945038,
0.06617940962314606,
-0.23063994944095612,
-0.4404833912849426,
-0.07711590826511383,
0.448634386... | 9 | Cardinal Richelieu had one simple foreign policy aim – to fight for France’s interests by whatever measures were needed. As a loyal servant to Louis XIII, Richelieu wanted France to be the dominant power in Europe and give Louis the status Richelieu felt he deserved. When deciding foreign policy and what was best for France, Richelieu took little notice of religious considerations. His time in power saw him, a Cardinal, ally with Protestant Sweden in the Thirty Years War and act as a bulwark against Catholic Spain. He was against Habsburg encirclement, yet the Holy Roman Emperor was still technically the temporal defender of the Catholic Church. For him, politics were a separate entity from religion. What Richelieu wanted for France, he got regardless of such issues as religion.
France and Northern Italy:
However, Richelieu’s plans for European domination were dependant on one thing – peace and stability at home. In 1624-25, he sent French troops to support the Grisons in their fight against the Austrians and to hinder the Spanish who were using the Valtelline to move troops south to north across Europe. these Spanish troops moved far too near to the French border for Richelieu’s liking – so any opportunity to harass them was taken. However, the Huguenot revolt at La Rochelle in 1625, forced Richelieu to call back French troops and this campaign came to an end due to internal problems. This was a trend that was to tie the hands of Richelieu.
Once the Grace of Alais ended the Huguenot issue, Richelieu could concentrate on northern Italy. In 1629, France had conquered Savoy and one year later, France captured Pinerolo in Piedmont. In the favourable Treaty of Cherasco of 1631, France kept the strategically important Pinerolo. By keeping Pinerolo, Richelieu committed France to a long term campaign as the Spanish would not tolerate a French presence in northern Italy for long and the area had to be patrolled by French soldiers. Richelieu wrote to Louis XIII:
|(Give) up all thought of rest, or economising, and of putting right the internal affairs of the kingdom.”|
Richelieu’s siding against the Spanish lead to his final clash with the dévot Marie de Madici. However, any input into northern Italy by France after 1631 was not successful. First the main and important part of the war took place in Germany; by the mid-1630’s, northern Italy had ceased to be as important as it was. In 1635, the French took control of the Valtelline but the Spanish regained it in 1637. In September 1640, the French took Turin but by that date, it was a paper-thin victory.
However, the campaign in north Italy does show how Richelieu’s mind worked. The man who lead the French to victory in 1635 was Rohan – the Huguenot leader who had lead the rebellion against the government at La Rochelle!
France and Germany:
Richelieu’s preoccupation with northern Italy meant that any French involvement in Germany was kept to a diplomatic and financial level up to 1635. Richelieu must have also known that most armies fighting in central Europe were of a much higher quality than the Spanish armies in northern Italy. Richelieu knew that the French army was not yet ready for a campaign in central Europe. Most of the armies fighting in the Thirty Years War had had a number of years experience in modern fighting techniques. France did not.
Again, in his dealings in central Europe, Richelieu showed that religion was not a barrier. In the war against Spain and Austria, he allied Catholic France with Protestant Holland in 1624. Just one year later the Huguenots in La Rochelle were to be in all out rebellion against Richelieu’s government but the alliance with Holland stood firm.
France also played a central part in the formulation of a coalition that included Denmark, Holland, England and Frederick of the Palatinate who allied against the might of the Holy Roman Emperor. All were Protestant states.
However, Richelieu’s most important contribution was to ally to a state in which it was illegal to be a Catholic – Sweden. In the Treaty of Altmark (1629), Richelieu negotiated the end of war between Sweden and Poland. In 1631, Sweden and France signed the Treaty of Bärwalde by which Sweden would keep an army in Germany that would be financed by France. The decided amount was 400,000 thaler a year for five years. Sweden’s military impact in Europe during the Thirty Years War ensured Gustavus Adolphus a place in history.
As the war progressed, Richelieu built up a large network of allies that was to include the Electors of Bavaria, Trier and Cologne, Murad IV (Sultan of Turkey), and on occasions Pope Urban VIII. Though this seems like an impressive list, it was extremely hard for Richelieu to manage it. Simple distance and communication problems made his task all but impossible and it also excluded disloyalty and those prepared to offer their services elsewhere if they felt that the money was better! Probably the most difficult ally Richelieu had was Gustavus of Sweden. His sweep through to the south-west of Germany (against the wishes of Richelieu) forced Maximillian of Bavaria back to the side of the Emperor after Richelieu had spent time cultivating his friendship. The death of Gustavus in 1632 ended this problem.
Oxenstierna formulated the League of Heilbronn after the death of Gustavus. However, it was Richelieu who influenced it not Oxenstierna and French subsidies were paid into the League’s coffers and not to Sweden. However, the defeat of Sweden at the Battle of Nördlingen in 1634, gave Richelieu no alternative but to militarily involve France as there was no other alternate ‘power’ who could do the same. However, in 1635, France was not ready for war so Richelieu tried to achieve success at a diplomatic level while his military was being developed.
Richelieu renewed his alliance with Holland for a joint attack on the Spanish Netherlands. The alliance with Sweden was renewed for another three years. Richelieu rallied Savoy, Parma and Mantua into an alliance to attack Milan in July 1635. He took under his wing Bernard, Duke of Saxe-Weimar, the successful military commander of the Swedish army. But for all this activity, France was not safe.
In 1636, an Austrian army marched into Burgundy and Franche Comté. A Spanish army based in the Spanish Netherlands invaded France and got as far as Corbie near the cathedral city of Amiens. The people of Paris panicked as they were only 50 miles away but both Louis XIII and Richelieu held firm and maintained some form of stability in the city. Probably military logic told them that the Spanish army was hopelessly overstretched at Corbie and that it would have to retreat. They were right.
By 1637, the small but modern French army was ready to take to the field. Its two principal commanders were Turenne and d’Enghien. The Dutch attacked the Spanish from the north in the Spanish Netherlands, while the French attacked from the south. The region of Artois had been captured by 1640. The Spanish army was severely beaten by a French army at Rocroi in 1643 – just 5 months after the death of Richelieu.
In 1638, Bernard of Saxe-Weimar took Breisach. This was an important city to take as it was the gateway the French needed to get into Germany. It also cut in half the Spanish Road so Spanish troops in the Spanish Netherlands could not be supplied by land and a sea supply route was fraught with danger. In 1639 Bernard died. Ironically, this proved useful to Richelieu as Bernard had become more and more difficult to control as he became more successful. Richelieu bought Bernard’s army and the land which it had occupied!
In 1638, Richelieu signed the Treaty of Hamburg with Sweden which gave Sweden a subsidy of 1 million livres a year to help pay for a campaign in Germany. With this in hand, the French and Swedes made deep inroads into Germany.
With Spain, Richelieu had to ward off a Spanish invasion via the Pyrenees. Once this was done, France invaded Spain though with no success. Just before Richelieu’s death, the French captured Roussillon, a Spanish province north of the Pyrenees but an attack on Catalonia was unsuccessful.
By his death, Richelieu had all but removed the threat of the Spanish; he had been responsible for creating a modernised army and navy and France had captured strategic cities in western Europe. Richelieu had done what he had intended to do – make France a serious ‘player’ in European affairs, a nation to be reckoned with.
- When Richelieu became chief minister in 1624, he was very aware that the navy of France was weak. This became even more apparent during his… | 1,966 | ENGLISH | 1 |
When the animals take over the farm the pigs become the animals’ leaders, as they are the smartest of the animals. Major starts out telling the animals about his dream and convincing them that’s how the farm should be like. The pigs encourage that all animals are equal and have 7 commandments to keep the farm in order.
After the animals start to agree with Napoleon more and more, Boxer says “If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right” (Orwell 56) that is how Napoleon gained his motto as “Napoleon is always right”. The animals became intimidated by the pigs and were too afraid to ever question their decisions. None of the other animals were smart enough to think differently.
When Napoleon realizes how much power he has, he starts to take advantage of it. Napoleon starts to tweak the commandments to his advantage. Napoleon creates a rule saying, “The milk and windfall apples should be reserved for the pigs alone” (Orwell 36). Napoleon has only made this rule to benefit himself and his kind. When Squealer says, “Surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?” he is trying to scare the other animals into thinking Napoleons doing the right thing. The pigs should not be treated any better than the other animals. This is what started Napoleons corrupt set of values.
Napoleon continues to make corrupt changes to the commandments and rules as he gains more and more authority. When “Napoleon accepted, through Whymper, a contract for 400 eggs a week” (Orwell 76) it was really unfair to the hens and he should have no control over that. Napoleon did not give any sympathy to the hens even after they revolted. Napoleon started to traumatize the hens for declining to give their eggs. Napoleon brought the situation way out of proportion and brutally starved some of the hens to death to get the eggs on time. Napoleon has no right to put the hens through hell just to because he says so.
Napoleon started off as a true leader keeping the farm under control but once his control got so immense he turned corrupt. Napoleon made and changed rules to benefit himself. Napoleon became very selfish and unfair to all the other animals. No other animal ever had the guts or smarts to question Napoleons power and decisions; which worsened the situation and made Napoleon become more corrupt. Napoleon had a stern set of rules but if he happened to break a rule his fellow pigs would use a euphemism by adding a few words to the rule to soften the true meaning. If everyone could quickly turn to page 109, last paragraph. The other animals were not very smart so they were fooled into thinking they had just remembered the commandments wrong in the first place. Napoleon had such corrupt morals that he thought any rule he broke he could simply alter it so he was no longer breaking the rules.
Napoleon ends up changing the entire commandments after he had gained all the power and money he wanted. In the end, the most corrupt thing Napoleon did is when he changed all the commandments to “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” (134). This brought the farm back to exactly how it had started. This very corrupt decision made the animals think they could not question his unfair decisions simply because some animals are more equal than others. This took away all the freedom and equality that had kept the farm together.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely” this is exactly what happened to animal farm. Napoleon had started out so against humans and made rules against having any similarities with them. After Napoleon had become more and more corrupt he turned into exactly what he was against… humans. Napoleon let his corrupt decisions get the best of him and alter his mind thinking he was above the rest. The animals were left with no power or leadership and all they had was a selfish, lying, corrupt dictator who acted just as a human. | <urn:uuid:7e3d07ff-3daa-4342-93d1-9367804a96da> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://nsukiasmlondon.com/2019/03/25/absolute-power-corrupts-absolutely/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00160.warc.gz | en | 0.987152 | 817 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.19598877429962158,
0.024222424253821373,
0.15362152457237244,
-0.009223372675478458,
-0.16520066559314728,
-0.09014672040939331,
0.0666104331612587,
0.055765487253665924,
0.3170327842235565,
0.37862443923950195,
-0.035524968057870865,
-0.4803987145423889,
0.19384002685546875,
0.08433765... | 1 | When the animals take over the farm the pigs become the animals’ leaders, as they are the smartest of the animals. Major starts out telling the animals about his dream and convincing them that’s how the farm should be like. The pigs encourage that all animals are equal and have 7 commandments to keep the farm in order.
After the animals start to agree with Napoleon more and more, Boxer says “If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right” (Orwell 56) that is how Napoleon gained his motto as “Napoleon is always right”. The animals became intimidated by the pigs and were too afraid to ever question their decisions. None of the other animals were smart enough to think differently.
When Napoleon realizes how much power he has, he starts to take advantage of it. Napoleon starts to tweak the commandments to his advantage. Napoleon creates a rule saying, “The milk and windfall apples should be reserved for the pigs alone” (Orwell 36). Napoleon has only made this rule to benefit himself and his kind. When Squealer says, “Surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?” he is trying to scare the other animals into thinking Napoleons doing the right thing. The pigs should not be treated any better than the other animals. This is what started Napoleons corrupt set of values.
Napoleon continues to make corrupt changes to the commandments and rules as he gains more and more authority. When “Napoleon accepted, through Whymper, a contract for 400 eggs a week” (Orwell 76) it was really unfair to the hens and he should have no control over that. Napoleon did not give any sympathy to the hens even after they revolted. Napoleon started to traumatize the hens for declining to give their eggs. Napoleon brought the situation way out of proportion and brutally starved some of the hens to death to get the eggs on time. Napoleon has no right to put the hens through hell just to because he says so.
Napoleon started off as a true leader keeping the farm under control but once his control got so immense he turned corrupt. Napoleon made and changed rules to benefit himself. Napoleon became very selfish and unfair to all the other animals. No other animal ever had the guts or smarts to question Napoleons power and decisions; which worsened the situation and made Napoleon become more corrupt. Napoleon had a stern set of rules but if he happened to break a rule his fellow pigs would use a euphemism by adding a few words to the rule to soften the true meaning. If everyone could quickly turn to page 109, last paragraph. The other animals were not very smart so they were fooled into thinking they had just remembered the commandments wrong in the first place. Napoleon had such corrupt morals that he thought any rule he broke he could simply alter it so he was no longer breaking the rules.
Napoleon ends up changing the entire commandments after he had gained all the power and money he wanted. In the end, the most corrupt thing Napoleon did is when he changed all the commandments to “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others” (134). This brought the farm back to exactly how it had started. This very corrupt decision made the animals think they could not question his unfair decisions simply because some animals are more equal than others. This took away all the freedom and equality that had kept the farm together.
“Absolute power corrupts absolutely” this is exactly what happened to animal farm. Napoleon had started out so against humans and made rules against having any similarities with them. After Napoleon had become more and more corrupt he turned into exactly what he was against… humans. Napoleon let his corrupt decisions get the best of him and alter his mind thinking he was above the rest. The animals were left with no power or leadership and all they had was a selfish, lying, corrupt dictator who acted just as a human. | 821 | ENGLISH | 1 |
By Christopher Miskimon
A British squadron lay wrecked on the waters of Lake Erie. Six vessels of war floated in ruins and 135 English sailors lay dead or wounded. While smoke still rose above the shot-riddled hulks, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, composed his now-famous message: “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” With the utterance of these words, Lake Erie became de facto American waters, and U.S. soldiers on land were free to resume their advance against the British forces on the northwestern frontier. That advance would culminate in the Battle of the Thames.
To this point, the War of 1812 had proven a very mixed adventure for the Americans. There had been a number of surprisingly successful engagements at sea, where the small but aggressive U.S. Navy had bested the Royal Navy in several ship-to-ship battles. While these victories had little impact on the overall war, they were well-publicized morale boosters. On land, however, the tiny American army, bolstered by thousands of militia, faced a much more difficult struggle. Several invasions of Canada, both in the east and west, had failed miserably. Militia troops were poorly organized and often refused outright to serve outside American borders. Much of the militia’s leadership was composed of political appointees, often of dubious military quality.
Such problems affected American forces in the Northwest Territory, where animosity ran high against both the indigenous Native American tribes and the British rulers of Canada. The Indians were natural enemies of the Americans in a bitter, ongoing struggle over land and resources that had lasted for centuries. In concert, anger at the British ran high as well; Great Britain desired to check American expansion westward, allying itself with local tribes and providing them with arms and supplies to be used against American settlers. For several years the Shawnee leader Tecumseh, along with his brother Tenskwatawa, also known as “the Prophet,” had sought to unite the disparate tribes in a multitribal confederacy that could better resist white migration. With the onset of the second war between the United States and Great Britain, Tecumseh threw in his lot with the British.
“Remember the Raisin”
American efforts in the Northwest had started with an invasion of Upper Canada by William Hull, governor of Michigan Territory, in July 1812. This offensive failed miserably, resulting in Detroit falling into British hands. In January 1813, an American force was defeated at Frenchtown, Michigan, with most of the force taken prisoner after Brig. Gen. James Winchester surrendered his men to British Colonel Henry Proctor. When Proctor withdrew, he callously or carelessly left behind some of his Indian allies to guard the wounded prisoners. Depending on accounts, between 30 and 60 of the wounded Americans were killed by the Indians. When this was reported in the American press as the “Raisin River Massacre,” outrage spread across the nation and “Remember the Raisin!” became a western battle cry.
Hull’s replacement, William Henry Harrison, was at the time the governor of Indiana Territory. Harrison had achieved national fame for his part in the Battle of Tippecanoe on November 7, 1811, and was popular in the West. When Hull surrendered Detroit, a replacement was needed and western politicians, particularly Kentuckians, lobbied hard for Harrison to be appointed commander, even though Winchester, who held a regular army commission, was preferred in Washington (this was before Winchester’s defeat at Frenchtown). The Kentuckians even went so far as to make Harrison a major general of the Kentucky militia so that he would outrank Winchester, despite the fact that he was serving as governor of a different territory at the time. On September 17, 1812, the administration of President James Madison gave Harrison command of all forces in the Northwest.
By the time Harrison received word of his promotion it was too late in the year to begin campaigning, so instead he occupied his troops by launching raids against hostile Indians and building fortifications to resist British assaults. Efforts to resume the offensive were further hampered when, in March 1813, U.S. Secretary of War James Armstrong ordered Harrison to take a strictly defensive posture. Besides demonstrating a notable lack of faith in the western governor, Armstrong had been advised that the American treasury was too empty to fund operations on that front.
Victory on Lake Erie
With the arrival of spring, Harrison’s fortifications were put to the test. With Lake Erie still under British control, Proctor resumed his offensive. Accompanied by his ally Tecumseh, he returned to American soil to launch attacks against Fort Meigs in May and Fort Stephenson in July. Both attacks were repulsed by the Americans. At Fort Meigs, a counterattack by Kentucky militia under General Green Clay drove the British back at great loss. At Fort Stephenson, Kentucky marksmen and a stiff defense likewise denied the British victory.
Tensions arose during both operations between the British and their Indian allies. Once again, prisoners were executed by the Indians despite Tecumseh’s alleged attempt to stop them, and there was the constant problem of native warriors deserting the army. While these things infuriated Proctor, Indian cultural rules of warfare did not require an individual to remain with a war party any longer than he chose to do so. After the unsuccessful engagements, Proctor returned to the Canadian side of the border at Fort Malden, near Amherstburg.
Along with these battles, Harrison kept himself occupied, moving frequently to Cleveland to coordinate with Commodore Perry. Eager to see Perry gain control of Lake Erie, Harrison even loaned the young seaman some of his troops to fill out the crews on his small squadron of warships. So far inland, experienced sailors were in critically short supply.
The critical battle for Lake Erie took place on September 10, 1813. Perry’s squadron of nine warships, four of them small gunboats, faced off against a British force of six vessels under Commander Robert Barclay of the Royal Navy. Action commenced at 10:45 am and continued until 3 pm, by which time four of the British ships had struck their colors in surrender. Their remaining vessels attempted to flee but were quickly run down by the Americans. It had been a sharp, intense engagement; 68 were killed and 190 wounded on both sides, but the result was American control of Lake Erie.
Harrison and Perry on the Offensive
With the American naval victory, Proctor decided that his position at Fort Malden was untenable and began to withdraw northward toward the town of Sandwich. Tecumseh and his Indian allies were upset; to them, a British retreat was tantamount to abandonment, but Proctor had no real choice. He was badly outnumbered, even though the American army was mostly militia. Fort Malden was practically devoid of provisions, and with the elimination of the British naval squadron, resupply was out of the question.
Control of Lake Erie meant the American army was also on the move. Harrison sent out a call for militia from the nearby states and territories. Troops poured in until there were perhaps 6,000 men under arms, the largest contingent arriving from Kentucky under their governor, Isaac Shelby, a 63-year-old veteran of the Revolutionary War Battle of Kings Mountain. Many of the troops were mounted, although only Congressman Richard Johnson’s regiment took its own horses along; the rest were left behind in a large corral that Harrison had built.
Perry was eager to help Harrison exploit the hard-won naval battle, using his ships to transport soldiers for the pursuit of Proctor and Tecumseh. To facilitate this cooperation, over the previous winter and spring Harrison had ordered the construction of some 90 bateaux (flat-bottomed boats commonly used on the local rivers) in Cleveland. The army moved first to Camp Portage in Ohio, then relayed to South Bass Island and finally to Middle Sister Island, closer to Amherstburg. As the Americans closed in, Proctor burned both Fort Malden and the Amherstburg Navy Yard and sought to preserve his dwindling force, between 700 and 900 Englishmen. They left ingloriously, carrying as many of their provisions with them as they could.
After reaching Sandwich, the British-Indian force turned eastward, following the southern shore of Lake St. Clair to the mouth of the Thames River. Crossing over to the river’s north bank, they continued eastward, following the river. The retreat was pitiful to see. The British had to dispose of much of their supplies as they went, often simply dumping them into the river. Each day the force grew smaller as Indian warriors, discouraged by the withdrawal, melted away into the surrounding woods in large numbers. Making things worse, frequent rains soaked the already demoralized troops. Families and camp followers straggled behind, preventing the British from destroying the bridges the Americans must use to pursue them. To assuage Tecumseh, Proctor promised to make a stand upriver at a point near Chatham, Ontario. However, neither of them knew the area very well, and plans were inchoate at best.
Behind them, Harrison’s army landed near Amherstburg on September 27 and quickly took up the chase. He detached most of his regulars to garrison Fort Detroit, Sandwich, and a temporary position named Fort Covington, near the ruins of Fort Malden, before moving on with a force of 3,500 men, the bulk of them Kentucky militia. The mounted Kentuckians were under the command of Colonel Richard M. Johnson, whose brother James served as lieutenant colonel. Perry’s ships shadowed the force on shore, moving alongside them. Upon reaching the River Thames, only three of his gunboats, Scorpion, Porcupine, and Tigris, could clear the bar at its entrance; the rest were too large. Perry continued on with the ships until he turned command over to fellow naval officer Jesse Elliot. Eager to join the impending fight, Perry had gone ashore as a volunteer aide to General Harrison.
Finding Favorable Terrain
As his men marched east, Proctor spent most of his time riding ahead of the main column, ostensibly on reconnaissance of the army’s route, his family accompanying him. This would later open his conduct to accusations of cowardice and poor leadership. On October 3, upon reaching the point where he had promised to make a stand with Tecumseh, Proctor decided that the terrain was unfavorable and ordered his troops to continue marching. Nevertheless, the Indian leader gathered some of his warriors, whose total number had dwindled to around 600, along with a small British detachment and laid an ambush for the approaching Americans. Unfortunately for Tecumseh, Harrison was warned about the surprise attack by sympathetic locals. He sent up two six-pounder field guns and opened fire on the hiding enemy. Having lost the vital element of surprise, the dejected Indians and British fell back and rejoined the main column.
Meanwhile, Proctor returned from his reconnaissance and led his army toward Moraviantown, a Christian Indian village he had purchased as winter quarters for his troops. The sick and wounded were moved there ahead of the remaining fit men, now numbering around 450, most of them from the 41st Regiment of Foot. By October 5, Harrison’s horsemen were hot on the heels of their foe. That morning the boats carrying the British reserve ammunition were captured. The advancing Americans had been finding discarded supplies for days. The battle would be joined two miles west of Moraviantown.
Proctor had at last found a position whose terrain was more favorable to defense, a wedge-shaped clearing in the thick, swampy forests. He placed his regulars at the narrow end of the wedge, between the river on his left and a large wooded swamp on the right. Along the river between it and the Detroit road was a tangle of thick brush that helped secure their left flank. The right flank was secured by the swamp itself, known as the Backmetack Marsh, too thick for horsemen to traverse and difficult even for infantry.
The British soldiers formed a line 300 yards long between the two natural obstacles. The ground in front of their line had another patch of boggy swampland in the middle, forcing any attacker to split his force. Just inside the swamp on the British right, Tecumseh and his warriors took up positions in place to outflank the Americans as they approached the British line. Proctor placed one six-pounder cannon on the road itself. With the flanks secure and terrain that would channel their opponents into a frontal attack, the British had a fairly good defensive position from which to fight. Also, their opponents were almost completely militia, whose reputation against regulars was mixed at best. Still, the question remained whether the British had the numbers to repulse a determined American assault. Exhaustion and hunger further hampered the English force.
Breaking the British Lines
When Harrison and his army arrived shortly after noon, he wondered himself about the prospects of charging British regulars across such unfavorable terrain. Colonel Johnson rode up and requested permission to personally charge the British line with his regiment of mounted Kentucky volunteers. Harrison refused, fearful of the casualties such a charge might sustain against closed ranks of well-drilled enemy regulars. Instead, he ordered Major Eleazar Wood to perform a reconnaissance of Proctor’s lines.
Wood’s observations changed Harrison’s mind. The major had discovered that the British, instead of aligning themselves in the standard close-order formations of the day, were spread out in open order, alone or in small groups, using trees for cover. Proctor had dispersed his men in this way at the urging of Tecumseh, who advised that fighting in such terrain required a more native arrangement. While such a formation was suited to the Indian style of warfare, it unfortunately served to disperse the firepower of the British muskets and isolated the Redcoats from each other. It was a flaw that Harrison quickly noted and decided to exploit.
With the British unable to mass their firepower, the American general gave permission for Johnson to lead his cavalry against them. His regiment’s strength was some 950 troops in 12 companies, divided equally into two battalions. One would advance along the right side of the field against the British left, while the other would move against the mixed force of Indians and regulars on the enemy right. Johnson considered the mixed group the more dangerous of the two and took personal command of the battalion facing them. He gave the other battalion to his brother James. Most of the militia infantry formed on the American left facing Backmetack Marsh, commanded by Governor Shelby.
By the time all was ready, it was after 3 pm. American skirmishers moved forward and exchanged fire with the British, then the cavalry charged, shouting the war cry: “Remember the Raisin!” On the right, James Johnson led his horsemen galloping into the British line. Scattered musket fire met them but did nothing to slow the Americans’ momentum. Within seconds, the riders pierced the ragged British line, breaking through and then turning to attack their enemy from the rear. Confusion reigned; British troops began to break and flee. A private from the 41st Foot, Shadrach Byfield, later wrote of the chaos: “After exchanging a few shots, our men gave way. I was in the act of retreating when one of our sergeants exclaimed ‘For God’s sake, men, stand and fight.’ I stood by him and fired one shot, but the line was broken and the men were retreating.”
The British troops were suddenly and shockingly defeated. The majority of them were taken prisoner by James Johnson’s cavalry, which had suffered only three wounded in their charge. British casualties, not counting prisoners, were also relatively light: 12 dead and 22 wounded. Their single six-pounder gun had been overrun without firing a shot; either its crew had been too surprised by the charge to fire, or perhaps its ammunition had been ruined by the rain or lost during the earlier retreat. At some point during the rout, Proctor himself retreated northeast toward Moraviantown with those few regulars who had avoided capture. James Johnson turned his cavalry north and rode quickly to assist his brother against Tecumseh and his warriors.
The Death of Tecumseh
On the American left, Richard Johnson used an old frontier trick against the Indians. A group of 20 volunteers agreed to charge ahead of the main body. With luck, the natives would empty their muskets at them, allowing the rest to approach in relative safety. These men galloped toward the warriors, taking cover in the swampy woods ahead. The ruse worked. Gunfire erupted from the trees, concentrating on the leading horsemen. Casualties were high—fully 75 percent of the 20 Americans were either killed or wounded. The rest of the Kentucky horsemen rode directly toward the tree line unopposed.
Once there, however, they began to encounter difficulty. Inside the marsh the ground was soft and covered in thick brush that formed a natural abatis, preventing the cavalrymen from entering on horseback. Richard Johnson ordered them to dismount and fight on foot. Pressed heavily, Tecumseh’s men began to fall back slowly, their own flank left uncovered by the rout of the British. Farther down the Indian line where the militia infantry had moved up near the Indian right, the warriors noticed that the Kentuckians appeared reluctant to advance any closer. The warriors decided to attack, hoping to push back the seemingly hesitant white men. Charging out from the swamp, they quickly formed a wedge between two of the militia brigades, which began to fall back.
Harrison saw what was happening and acted quickly, restoring the American lines by sending in a fresh regiment of Kentucky troops, assisted by Shelby and Oliver Hazard Perry. It was too much for the Indians, who fell back to their former positions in the swamp.
Now came a critical moment in the battle. Richard Johnson was still astride his horse despite having suffered four separate wounds; his hapless mount was itself wounded seven times. The colonel had stayed in the saddle to more easily direct his dismounted troops, but it made him a tempting target. Now a solitary Indian chief charged at him, firing a shot that hit Johnson in the hand. When he still kept in his saddle, the Indian drew his tomahawk and charged. Despite the injury to his hand, and with his opponent drawing quickly closer, Johnson managed to draw his pistol and fire a load of buck and ball (one musket ball and three smaller buckshot) at the onrushing Indian. The attacker was struck in the chest and fell to the ground, dead.
Claims later arose (although not from Johnson) that the slain Indian was Tecumseh, who was killed during the battle. However, given the chaotic nature of the battle, no one was certain who had killed the chief. Richard Johnson, wounded and fighting for his life, would likely not have known who was attacking him and in fact never claimed overtly that he was Tecumseh’s killer. He was often credited with the feat anyway, and while he never claimed it, neither did he particularly deny it. Whatever the truth, Tecumseh was indeed dead, and his loss sapped the warriors’ will to continue the fight. They quickly retreated into the swamps and woods, leaving the field to the exultant Americans. The battle was effectively over.
A Stunning Strategic Victory at the Battle of the Thames
Considering the strategic significance of the Battle of the Thames, overall casualties were light. The fight against Tecumseh’s warriors had cost the Americans seven dead and 19 wounded, while Harrison counted 33 dead Indians on the field, with an additional unknown number of dead and wounded carried off by their comrades. Total British casualties including prisoners rose to over 600 for the entire campaign. Tecumseh’s body was dismembered and made into souvenirs for the victorious Americans, a sign of the essential bitterness and hatred that permeated conflict between the frontiersmen and the Native Americans. “Tecumseh razor strops,” as they were known, were brandished with relish across the frontier. Many other Indian bodies were also mutilated after the battle. It is entirely possible that Tecumseh’s remains were carried off by some of his warriors and that some other hapless participant was torn apart in his place. A few of the frontier troops respected the slain leader. Charles Sherman, an Ohio militia officer, thought enough of the Indian to name his third son William Tecumseh Sherman, the future general of Civil War fame.
These relatively low casualty numbers belied the importance of the American victory. Combined with the defeat on Lake Erie, British operations in Upper Canada were effectively over. With Lower (Eastern) Canada under imminent threat of invasion by American forces from New York, the British could not spare men or supplies for a counteroffensive. Parts of Upper Canada would remain under American occupation until the Treaty of Ghent ended the war with the restoration of prewar lines in December 1814. For his part, Proctor was court-martialed and censured for his abject failure. His rank and pay were suspended for six months, although the Prince Regent later reduced the general’s punishment to a public reprimand—which was bad enough. Proctor returned to England, his career over, and died in obscurity in 1822.
For the Native American Confederacy, the Battle of the Thames was an utter and total disaster. Tecumseh, the one leader who had been able to unite the disparate tribes, was dead. Several of the tribes were so dismayed by the defeat that they made peace with Harrison later in the month. Their alliance with Britain was over, and the Northwest Territory was henceforth American. Indian hopes of retaining their land and British designs for an Indian buffer state had both been dashed in a single brief encounter in the swamp.
“Old Tippecanoe”: The Shortest Serving President
The battle had far-ranging implications for the Americans as well. Besides the elimination of an organized Native American block to eventual expansion, the battle was the first significant land victory for American forces during the war. It provided a vital boost to flagging morale and made the political careers of a number of participants. While Harrison was dogged by political enemies and virtually sat out the rest of the war, the battle enhanced his reputation and helped in his successful bid for the presidency in 1840. After a remarkable election underscored by the improbable reinvention of Harrison as “Old Tippecanoe,” a humble farmer, the Whig Party managed to capture the White House for Harrison. Tragically, Harrison became ill during his first month in office and died on April 4, 1841—exactly one month after taking office. Harrison’s tenure remains by far the shortest presidency in American history.
Similarly, Richard Johnson prospered politically, serving as vice president to the man Harrison defeated in 1840, Democratic President Martin Van Buren. Accounts, some greatly exaggerated, of his fight on the Thames figured prominently in Johnson’s campaign. Beyond these two leaders, three future governors, three lieutenant governors, four senators, and 20 congressmen could later claim to have been at the Battle of the Thames, making it one of the most politically decisive engagements in the course of American history, and one of the nation’s few shining moments in the controversial and little understood War of 1812. | <urn:uuid:812c983d-d787-45d6-b88b-4496fe53e12b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/10/17/battle-of-the-thames/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00507.warc.gz | en | 0.984093 | 4,906 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.268354594707489,
-0.05218537151813507,
0.43171226978302,
-0.07488693296909332,
-0.09122620522975922,
-0.2813480496406555,
-0.037017568945884705,
0.149286150932312,
-0.35086971521377563,
0.10798764228820801,
-0.025130512192845345,
-0.24806836247444153,
0.0035900683142244816,
0.1115050911... | 4 | By Christopher Miskimon
A British squadron lay wrecked on the waters of Lake Erie. Six vessels of war floated in ruins and 135 English sailors lay dead or wounded. While smoke still rose above the shot-riddled hulks, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, composed his now-famous message: “We have met the enemy and they are ours.” With the utterance of these words, Lake Erie became de facto American waters, and U.S. soldiers on land were free to resume their advance against the British forces on the northwestern frontier. That advance would culminate in the Battle of the Thames.
To this point, the War of 1812 had proven a very mixed adventure for the Americans. There had been a number of surprisingly successful engagements at sea, where the small but aggressive U.S. Navy had bested the Royal Navy in several ship-to-ship battles. While these victories had little impact on the overall war, they were well-publicized morale boosters. On land, however, the tiny American army, bolstered by thousands of militia, faced a much more difficult struggle. Several invasions of Canada, both in the east and west, had failed miserably. Militia troops were poorly organized and often refused outright to serve outside American borders. Much of the militia’s leadership was composed of political appointees, often of dubious military quality.
Such problems affected American forces in the Northwest Territory, where animosity ran high against both the indigenous Native American tribes and the British rulers of Canada. The Indians were natural enemies of the Americans in a bitter, ongoing struggle over land and resources that had lasted for centuries. In concert, anger at the British ran high as well; Great Britain desired to check American expansion westward, allying itself with local tribes and providing them with arms and supplies to be used against American settlers. For several years the Shawnee leader Tecumseh, along with his brother Tenskwatawa, also known as “the Prophet,” had sought to unite the disparate tribes in a multitribal confederacy that could better resist white migration. With the onset of the second war between the United States and Great Britain, Tecumseh threw in his lot with the British.
“Remember the Raisin”
American efforts in the Northwest had started with an invasion of Upper Canada by William Hull, governor of Michigan Territory, in July 1812. This offensive failed miserably, resulting in Detroit falling into British hands. In January 1813, an American force was defeated at Frenchtown, Michigan, with most of the force taken prisoner after Brig. Gen. James Winchester surrendered his men to British Colonel Henry Proctor. When Proctor withdrew, he callously or carelessly left behind some of his Indian allies to guard the wounded prisoners. Depending on accounts, between 30 and 60 of the wounded Americans were killed by the Indians. When this was reported in the American press as the “Raisin River Massacre,” outrage spread across the nation and “Remember the Raisin!” became a western battle cry.
Hull’s replacement, William Henry Harrison, was at the time the governor of Indiana Territory. Harrison had achieved national fame for his part in the Battle of Tippecanoe on November 7, 1811, and was popular in the West. When Hull surrendered Detroit, a replacement was needed and western politicians, particularly Kentuckians, lobbied hard for Harrison to be appointed commander, even though Winchester, who held a regular army commission, was preferred in Washington (this was before Winchester’s defeat at Frenchtown). The Kentuckians even went so far as to make Harrison a major general of the Kentucky militia so that he would outrank Winchester, despite the fact that he was serving as governor of a different territory at the time. On September 17, 1812, the administration of President James Madison gave Harrison command of all forces in the Northwest.
By the time Harrison received word of his promotion it was too late in the year to begin campaigning, so instead he occupied his troops by launching raids against hostile Indians and building fortifications to resist British assaults. Efforts to resume the offensive were further hampered when, in March 1813, U.S. Secretary of War James Armstrong ordered Harrison to take a strictly defensive posture. Besides demonstrating a notable lack of faith in the western governor, Armstrong had been advised that the American treasury was too empty to fund operations on that front.
Victory on Lake Erie
With the arrival of spring, Harrison’s fortifications were put to the test. With Lake Erie still under British control, Proctor resumed his offensive. Accompanied by his ally Tecumseh, he returned to American soil to launch attacks against Fort Meigs in May and Fort Stephenson in July. Both attacks were repulsed by the Americans. At Fort Meigs, a counterattack by Kentucky militia under General Green Clay drove the British back at great loss. At Fort Stephenson, Kentucky marksmen and a stiff defense likewise denied the British victory.
Tensions arose during both operations between the British and their Indian allies. Once again, prisoners were executed by the Indians despite Tecumseh’s alleged attempt to stop them, and there was the constant problem of native warriors deserting the army. While these things infuriated Proctor, Indian cultural rules of warfare did not require an individual to remain with a war party any longer than he chose to do so. After the unsuccessful engagements, Proctor returned to the Canadian side of the border at Fort Malden, near Amherstburg.
Along with these battles, Harrison kept himself occupied, moving frequently to Cleveland to coordinate with Commodore Perry. Eager to see Perry gain control of Lake Erie, Harrison even loaned the young seaman some of his troops to fill out the crews on his small squadron of warships. So far inland, experienced sailors were in critically short supply.
The critical battle for Lake Erie took place on September 10, 1813. Perry’s squadron of nine warships, four of them small gunboats, faced off against a British force of six vessels under Commander Robert Barclay of the Royal Navy. Action commenced at 10:45 am and continued until 3 pm, by which time four of the British ships had struck their colors in surrender. Their remaining vessels attempted to flee but were quickly run down by the Americans. It had been a sharp, intense engagement; 68 were killed and 190 wounded on both sides, but the result was American control of Lake Erie.
Harrison and Perry on the Offensive
With the American naval victory, Proctor decided that his position at Fort Malden was untenable and began to withdraw northward toward the town of Sandwich. Tecumseh and his Indian allies were upset; to them, a British retreat was tantamount to abandonment, but Proctor had no real choice. He was badly outnumbered, even though the American army was mostly militia. Fort Malden was practically devoid of provisions, and with the elimination of the British naval squadron, resupply was out of the question.
Control of Lake Erie meant the American army was also on the move. Harrison sent out a call for militia from the nearby states and territories. Troops poured in until there were perhaps 6,000 men under arms, the largest contingent arriving from Kentucky under their governor, Isaac Shelby, a 63-year-old veteran of the Revolutionary War Battle of Kings Mountain. Many of the troops were mounted, although only Congressman Richard Johnson’s regiment took its own horses along; the rest were left behind in a large corral that Harrison had built.
Perry was eager to help Harrison exploit the hard-won naval battle, using his ships to transport soldiers for the pursuit of Proctor and Tecumseh. To facilitate this cooperation, over the previous winter and spring Harrison had ordered the construction of some 90 bateaux (flat-bottomed boats commonly used on the local rivers) in Cleveland. The army moved first to Camp Portage in Ohio, then relayed to South Bass Island and finally to Middle Sister Island, closer to Amherstburg. As the Americans closed in, Proctor burned both Fort Malden and the Amherstburg Navy Yard and sought to preserve his dwindling force, between 700 and 900 Englishmen. They left ingloriously, carrying as many of their provisions with them as they could.
After reaching Sandwich, the British-Indian force turned eastward, following the southern shore of Lake St. Clair to the mouth of the Thames River. Crossing over to the river’s north bank, they continued eastward, following the river. The retreat was pitiful to see. The British had to dispose of much of their supplies as they went, often simply dumping them into the river. Each day the force grew smaller as Indian warriors, discouraged by the withdrawal, melted away into the surrounding woods in large numbers. Making things worse, frequent rains soaked the already demoralized troops. Families and camp followers straggled behind, preventing the British from destroying the bridges the Americans must use to pursue them. To assuage Tecumseh, Proctor promised to make a stand upriver at a point near Chatham, Ontario. However, neither of them knew the area very well, and plans were inchoate at best.
Behind them, Harrison’s army landed near Amherstburg on September 27 and quickly took up the chase. He detached most of his regulars to garrison Fort Detroit, Sandwich, and a temporary position named Fort Covington, near the ruins of Fort Malden, before moving on with a force of 3,500 men, the bulk of them Kentucky militia. The mounted Kentuckians were under the command of Colonel Richard M. Johnson, whose brother James served as lieutenant colonel. Perry’s ships shadowed the force on shore, moving alongside them. Upon reaching the River Thames, only three of his gunboats, Scorpion, Porcupine, and Tigris, could clear the bar at its entrance; the rest were too large. Perry continued on with the ships until he turned command over to fellow naval officer Jesse Elliot. Eager to join the impending fight, Perry had gone ashore as a volunteer aide to General Harrison.
Finding Favorable Terrain
As his men marched east, Proctor spent most of his time riding ahead of the main column, ostensibly on reconnaissance of the army’s route, his family accompanying him. This would later open his conduct to accusations of cowardice and poor leadership. On October 3, upon reaching the point where he had promised to make a stand with Tecumseh, Proctor decided that the terrain was unfavorable and ordered his troops to continue marching. Nevertheless, the Indian leader gathered some of his warriors, whose total number had dwindled to around 600, along with a small British detachment and laid an ambush for the approaching Americans. Unfortunately for Tecumseh, Harrison was warned about the surprise attack by sympathetic locals. He sent up two six-pounder field guns and opened fire on the hiding enemy. Having lost the vital element of surprise, the dejected Indians and British fell back and rejoined the main column.
Meanwhile, Proctor returned from his reconnaissance and led his army toward Moraviantown, a Christian Indian village he had purchased as winter quarters for his troops. The sick and wounded were moved there ahead of the remaining fit men, now numbering around 450, most of them from the 41st Regiment of Foot. By October 5, Harrison’s horsemen were hot on the heels of their foe. That morning the boats carrying the British reserve ammunition were captured. The advancing Americans had been finding discarded supplies for days. The battle would be joined two miles west of Moraviantown.
Proctor had at last found a position whose terrain was more favorable to defense, a wedge-shaped clearing in the thick, swampy forests. He placed his regulars at the narrow end of the wedge, between the river on his left and a large wooded swamp on the right. Along the river between it and the Detroit road was a tangle of thick brush that helped secure their left flank. The right flank was secured by the swamp itself, known as the Backmetack Marsh, too thick for horsemen to traverse and difficult even for infantry.
The British soldiers formed a line 300 yards long between the two natural obstacles. The ground in front of their line had another patch of boggy swampland in the middle, forcing any attacker to split his force. Just inside the swamp on the British right, Tecumseh and his warriors took up positions in place to outflank the Americans as they approached the British line. Proctor placed one six-pounder cannon on the road itself. With the flanks secure and terrain that would channel their opponents into a frontal attack, the British had a fairly good defensive position from which to fight. Also, their opponents were almost completely militia, whose reputation against regulars was mixed at best. Still, the question remained whether the British had the numbers to repulse a determined American assault. Exhaustion and hunger further hampered the English force.
Breaking the British Lines
When Harrison and his army arrived shortly after noon, he wondered himself about the prospects of charging British regulars across such unfavorable terrain. Colonel Johnson rode up and requested permission to personally charge the British line with his regiment of mounted Kentucky volunteers. Harrison refused, fearful of the casualties such a charge might sustain against closed ranks of well-drilled enemy regulars. Instead, he ordered Major Eleazar Wood to perform a reconnaissance of Proctor’s lines.
Wood’s observations changed Harrison’s mind. The major had discovered that the British, instead of aligning themselves in the standard close-order formations of the day, were spread out in open order, alone or in small groups, using trees for cover. Proctor had dispersed his men in this way at the urging of Tecumseh, who advised that fighting in such terrain required a more native arrangement. While such a formation was suited to the Indian style of warfare, it unfortunately served to disperse the firepower of the British muskets and isolated the Redcoats from each other. It was a flaw that Harrison quickly noted and decided to exploit.
With the British unable to mass their firepower, the American general gave permission for Johnson to lead his cavalry against them. His regiment’s strength was some 950 troops in 12 companies, divided equally into two battalions. One would advance along the right side of the field against the British left, while the other would move against the mixed force of Indians and regulars on the enemy right. Johnson considered the mixed group the more dangerous of the two and took personal command of the battalion facing them. He gave the other battalion to his brother James. Most of the militia infantry formed on the American left facing Backmetack Marsh, commanded by Governor Shelby.
By the time all was ready, it was after 3 pm. American skirmishers moved forward and exchanged fire with the British, then the cavalry charged, shouting the war cry: “Remember the Raisin!” On the right, James Johnson led his horsemen galloping into the British line. Scattered musket fire met them but did nothing to slow the Americans’ momentum. Within seconds, the riders pierced the ragged British line, breaking through and then turning to attack their enemy from the rear. Confusion reigned; British troops began to break and flee. A private from the 41st Foot, Shadrach Byfield, later wrote of the chaos: “After exchanging a few shots, our men gave way. I was in the act of retreating when one of our sergeants exclaimed ‘For God’s sake, men, stand and fight.’ I stood by him and fired one shot, but the line was broken and the men were retreating.”
The British troops were suddenly and shockingly defeated. The majority of them were taken prisoner by James Johnson’s cavalry, which had suffered only three wounded in their charge. British casualties, not counting prisoners, were also relatively light: 12 dead and 22 wounded. Their single six-pounder gun had been overrun without firing a shot; either its crew had been too surprised by the charge to fire, or perhaps its ammunition had been ruined by the rain or lost during the earlier retreat. At some point during the rout, Proctor himself retreated northeast toward Moraviantown with those few regulars who had avoided capture. James Johnson turned his cavalry north and rode quickly to assist his brother against Tecumseh and his warriors.
The Death of Tecumseh
On the American left, Richard Johnson used an old frontier trick against the Indians. A group of 20 volunteers agreed to charge ahead of the main body. With luck, the natives would empty their muskets at them, allowing the rest to approach in relative safety. These men galloped toward the warriors, taking cover in the swampy woods ahead. The ruse worked. Gunfire erupted from the trees, concentrating on the leading horsemen. Casualties were high—fully 75 percent of the 20 Americans were either killed or wounded. The rest of the Kentucky horsemen rode directly toward the tree line unopposed.
Once there, however, they began to encounter difficulty. Inside the marsh the ground was soft and covered in thick brush that formed a natural abatis, preventing the cavalrymen from entering on horseback. Richard Johnson ordered them to dismount and fight on foot. Pressed heavily, Tecumseh’s men began to fall back slowly, their own flank left uncovered by the rout of the British. Farther down the Indian line where the militia infantry had moved up near the Indian right, the warriors noticed that the Kentuckians appeared reluctant to advance any closer. The warriors decided to attack, hoping to push back the seemingly hesitant white men. Charging out from the swamp, they quickly formed a wedge between two of the militia brigades, which began to fall back.
Harrison saw what was happening and acted quickly, restoring the American lines by sending in a fresh regiment of Kentucky troops, assisted by Shelby and Oliver Hazard Perry. It was too much for the Indians, who fell back to their former positions in the swamp.
Now came a critical moment in the battle. Richard Johnson was still astride his horse despite having suffered four separate wounds; his hapless mount was itself wounded seven times. The colonel had stayed in the saddle to more easily direct his dismounted troops, but it made him a tempting target. Now a solitary Indian chief charged at him, firing a shot that hit Johnson in the hand. When he still kept in his saddle, the Indian drew his tomahawk and charged. Despite the injury to his hand, and with his opponent drawing quickly closer, Johnson managed to draw his pistol and fire a load of buck and ball (one musket ball and three smaller buckshot) at the onrushing Indian. The attacker was struck in the chest and fell to the ground, dead.
Claims later arose (although not from Johnson) that the slain Indian was Tecumseh, who was killed during the battle. However, given the chaotic nature of the battle, no one was certain who had killed the chief. Richard Johnson, wounded and fighting for his life, would likely not have known who was attacking him and in fact never claimed overtly that he was Tecumseh’s killer. He was often credited with the feat anyway, and while he never claimed it, neither did he particularly deny it. Whatever the truth, Tecumseh was indeed dead, and his loss sapped the warriors’ will to continue the fight. They quickly retreated into the swamps and woods, leaving the field to the exultant Americans. The battle was effectively over.
A Stunning Strategic Victory at the Battle of the Thames
Considering the strategic significance of the Battle of the Thames, overall casualties were light. The fight against Tecumseh’s warriors had cost the Americans seven dead and 19 wounded, while Harrison counted 33 dead Indians on the field, with an additional unknown number of dead and wounded carried off by their comrades. Total British casualties including prisoners rose to over 600 for the entire campaign. Tecumseh’s body was dismembered and made into souvenirs for the victorious Americans, a sign of the essential bitterness and hatred that permeated conflict between the frontiersmen and the Native Americans. “Tecumseh razor strops,” as they were known, were brandished with relish across the frontier. Many other Indian bodies were also mutilated after the battle. It is entirely possible that Tecumseh’s remains were carried off by some of his warriors and that some other hapless participant was torn apart in his place. A few of the frontier troops respected the slain leader. Charles Sherman, an Ohio militia officer, thought enough of the Indian to name his third son William Tecumseh Sherman, the future general of Civil War fame.
These relatively low casualty numbers belied the importance of the American victory. Combined with the defeat on Lake Erie, British operations in Upper Canada were effectively over. With Lower (Eastern) Canada under imminent threat of invasion by American forces from New York, the British could not spare men or supplies for a counteroffensive. Parts of Upper Canada would remain under American occupation until the Treaty of Ghent ended the war with the restoration of prewar lines in December 1814. For his part, Proctor was court-martialed and censured for his abject failure. His rank and pay were suspended for six months, although the Prince Regent later reduced the general’s punishment to a public reprimand—which was bad enough. Proctor returned to England, his career over, and died in obscurity in 1822.
For the Native American Confederacy, the Battle of the Thames was an utter and total disaster. Tecumseh, the one leader who had been able to unite the disparate tribes, was dead. Several of the tribes were so dismayed by the defeat that they made peace with Harrison later in the month. Their alliance with Britain was over, and the Northwest Territory was henceforth American. Indian hopes of retaining their land and British designs for an Indian buffer state had both been dashed in a single brief encounter in the swamp.
“Old Tippecanoe”: The Shortest Serving President
The battle had far-ranging implications for the Americans as well. Besides the elimination of an organized Native American block to eventual expansion, the battle was the first significant land victory for American forces during the war. It provided a vital boost to flagging morale and made the political careers of a number of participants. While Harrison was dogged by political enemies and virtually sat out the rest of the war, the battle enhanced his reputation and helped in his successful bid for the presidency in 1840. After a remarkable election underscored by the improbable reinvention of Harrison as “Old Tippecanoe,” a humble farmer, the Whig Party managed to capture the White House for Harrison. Tragically, Harrison became ill during his first month in office and died on April 4, 1841—exactly one month after taking office. Harrison’s tenure remains by far the shortest presidency in American history.
Similarly, Richard Johnson prospered politically, serving as vice president to the man Harrison defeated in 1840, Democratic President Martin Van Buren. Accounts, some greatly exaggerated, of his fight on the Thames figured prominently in Johnson’s campaign. Beyond these two leaders, three future governors, three lieutenant governors, four senators, and 20 congressmen could later claim to have been at the Battle of the Thames, making it one of the most politically decisive engagements in the course of American history, and one of the nation’s few shining moments in the controversial and little understood War of 1812. | 4,931 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Contemporary biographers suggest Geoffrey Chaucer was born around 1340-1343 as a result of testimony he delivered at a recorded legal proceeding (a dispute between two families as to which family had the right to display a certain coat of arms) in 1386 in which he claimed to be “forty years old and more.” He was once a soldier who fought in the Hundred Years War, particularly King Edward III’s siege of the French city of Rheims.
(Pictured above: A drawing of Chaucer from the famous Ellesmere Manuscript, a text of The Canterbury Tales dating back to the early 15th century. It was clearly commissioned by a very wealthy patron, and the text passed through the hands of English gentry before it came to the Ellesmere family. The Ellesmere text is currently owned by the Huntington Library in Los Angeles.)
Chaucer was born to a family that arose from peasantry and eventually entered the halls of nobility. His great-grandfather was Andrew de Dynyngton, taverner who migrated from a small village to the larger town of Ipswich in East Anglia, before finally settling in London. His son, Robert, was apprenticed to a man named John le Chaucer (“Chaucer” like “Taverner was an occupational name). A “chaucier” in French was a maker of shoes. At any rate, John le Chaucer was killed in a brawl and he named Robert as a beneficiary in his will. Robert took his name as a sign of respect. In turn, Robert’s son, John, was a successful vintner and wine importer. He served the king’s wine cellar. John and his young family survived the Great Plague of 1348-1349 which killed over a quarter of England’s population. Many of his relatives died in the plague and thus bequeathed their estates to John who now became a wealthy man. They moved to Thames Street in London and lived not far from St. Paul’s Cathedral.
Geoffrey Chaucer grew up in the milieu of the royal house, first serving as a page before serving the king, first as a soldier and then as a bureaucrat and a diplomat earning a salary for life when he served King Edward III as well as John of Gaunt. He married a woman named Philippa.
Chaucer became a supporter of the religious reformer, John Wycliffe. As a result of his stable employment prospects, Chaucer wrote his first major poem The Book of the Duchess in 1374 dedicated to John of Gaunt’s late wife. He also translated the popular Romance of the Rose. However, it wasn’t until his employment turned away from external military and diplomatic relations and to internal auditing that Chaucer found the time and security to write freely. He was given a flat to live in, where he wrote The House of Fame, The Parliament of Fowls, and Troilus and Criseyde. Like his earlier The Book of the Duchess, the former two read like the French dream-like poetry which owes a debt of gratitude to Dante, as well.
Troilus and Criseyde is Chaucer’s longest recorded poem. It is based on Giovanni Bocaccio’s Filostrato. The story follows the tragic love affair between Prince Troilus of Troy and the courtly lady, Criseyde, who eventually leaves him. Chaucer also translated a copy of Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy.
Apparently, Chaucer may have forcibly abducted/raped a young woman (the medieval term was raptus which meant either case). He was charged with the crime but never convicted, and it appears that he paid approximately half his yearly salary to the woman in question through related outlets. Chaucer called several prominent businessmen and bureaucrats to his defense in the case, a testament to how well connected Chaucer was.
After the Peasant’s Revolt in 1381, in which tradesmen and farmers stormed the city with demands for equality from the king while looting and attacking certain noblemen, Chaucer left the city for the country as part of an effort to maintain a lower profile.
In 1387, his wife Philippa died while Chaucer was working on The Legend of Good Women, a collection of short stories about good women allegedly completed to placate Queen Anne and make amends for his treatment of Criseyde in her betrayal of Troilus in his earlier work. He also embarked on The Canterbury Tales, which owes a debt of gratitude to Bocaccio’s Decameron, however much of the tales are entirely new works of Chaucer’s that do not rely as heavily on French and Italian styles that had so enthralled Chaucer previously. He continually worked and re-worked the tales over the next thirteen years of his life, while also pausing to write both prose and poetry (including at least one scientific treatise).
(The title page to The Canterbury Tales circa 1400)
He later returned to working for King Richard II’s government managing procurements and funding for building projects and salaries for workers. However, twice in the same week he was beaten and robbed while carrying his payroll. Thus he resigned his position after only two years. Then Chaucer appears to have retired to Greenwich, living off his pensions and annuities. Toward the end of his life, Chaucer’s literary works were becoming a source of national pride. One of his last writings was “A Complaint to his Purse” -a humorous praise of Henry who deposed King Richard, and the work also requested a reinstatement of Chaucer’s pension which was granted.
(A 19th century engraving of Geoffrey Chaucer by an unknown artist)
During the last year of Chaucer’s life he lived at Westminster Abbey in a room overlooking the garden (not an unusual thing for the church and monasteries to handle the enfeebled and elderly in need of ‘rest houses’). He died in 1400 around the age of sixty. He was buried at Westminster Abbey. Prior to Chaucer, a burial at Westminster Abbey was reserved only for royalty (dating back to Edward the Confessor in 1066). | <urn:uuid:1e6937fc-4812-436b-86aa-5700ca71be81> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://greatbooksguy.com/2019/12/04/who-is-geoffrey-chaucer/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00148.warc.gz | en | 0.985232 | 1,311 | 3.65625 | 4 | [
0.2894085943698883,
0.633661687374115,
0.32072779536247253,
0.1062067449092865,
-0.3213462829589844,
-0.3487224578857422,
0.22019661962985992,
-0.15908284485340118,
0.020099716261029243,
-0.07803396135568619,
-0.5054968595504761,
-0.06685426831245422,
0.2187870442867279,
-0.042337246239185... | 1 | Contemporary biographers suggest Geoffrey Chaucer was born around 1340-1343 as a result of testimony he delivered at a recorded legal proceeding (a dispute between two families as to which family had the right to display a certain coat of arms) in 1386 in which he claimed to be “forty years old and more.” He was once a soldier who fought in the Hundred Years War, particularly King Edward III’s siege of the French city of Rheims.
(Pictured above: A drawing of Chaucer from the famous Ellesmere Manuscript, a text of The Canterbury Tales dating back to the early 15th century. It was clearly commissioned by a very wealthy patron, and the text passed through the hands of English gentry before it came to the Ellesmere family. The Ellesmere text is currently owned by the Huntington Library in Los Angeles.)
Chaucer was born to a family that arose from peasantry and eventually entered the halls of nobility. His great-grandfather was Andrew de Dynyngton, taverner who migrated from a small village to the larger town of Ipswich in East Anglia, before finally settling in London. His son, Robert, was apprenticed to a man named John le Chaucer (“Chaucer” like “Taverner was an occupational name). A “chaucier” in French was a maker of shoes. At any rate, John le Chaucer was killed in a brawl and he named Robert as a beneficiary in his will. Robert took his name as a sign of respect. In turn, Robert’s son, John, was a successful vintner and wine importer. He served the king’s wine cellar. John and his young family survived the Great Plague of 1348-1349 which killed over a quarter of England’s population. Many of his relatives died in the plague and thus bequeathed their estates to John who now became a wealthy man. They moved to Thames Street in London and lived not far from St. Paul’s Cathedral.
Geoffrey Chaucer grew up in the milieu of the royal house, first serving as a page before serving the king, first as a soldier and then as a bureaucrat and a diplomat earning a salary for life when he served King Edward III as well as John of Gaunt. He married a woman named Philippa.
Chaucer became a supporter of the religious reformer, John Wycliffe. As a result of his stable employment prospects, Chaucer wrote his first major poem The Book of the Duchess in 1374 dedicated to John of Gaunt’s late wife. He also translated the popular Romance of the Rose. However, it wasn’t until his employment turned away from external military and diplomatic relations and to internal auditing that Chaucer found the time and security to write freely. He was given a flat to live in, where he wrote The House of Fame, The Parliament of Fowls, and Troilus and Criseyde. Like his earlier The Book of the Duchess, the former two read like the French dream-like poetry which owes a debt of gratitude to Dante, as well.
Troilus and Criseyde is Chaucer’s longest recorded poem. It is based on Giovanni Bocaccio’s Filostrato. The story follows the tragic love affair between Prince Troilus of Troy and the courtly lady, Criseyde, who eventually leaves him. Chaucer also translated a copy of Boethius’s Consolation of Philosophy.
Apparently, Chaucer may have forcibly abducted/raped a young woman (the medieval term was raptus which meant either case). He was charged with the crime but never convicted, and it appears that he paid approximately half his yearly salary to the woman in question through related outlets. Chaucer called several prominent businessmen and bureaucrats to his defense in the case, a testament to how well connected Chaucer was.
After the Peasant’s Revolt in 1381, in which tradesmen and farmers stormed the city with demands for equality from the king while looting and attacking certain noblemen, Chaucer left the city for the country as part of an effort to maintain a lower profile.
In 1387, his wife Philippa died while Chaucer was working on The Legend of Good Women, a collection of short stories about good women allegedly completed to placate Queen Anne and make amends for his treatment of Criseyde in her betrayal of Troilus in his earlier work. He also embarked on The Canterbury Tales, which owes a debt of gratitude to Bocaccio’s Decameron, however much of the tales are entirely new works of Chaucer’s that do not rely as heavily on French and Italian styles that had so enthralled Chaucer previously. He continually worked and re-worked the tales over the next thirteen years of his life, while also pausing to write both prose and poetry (including at least one scientific treatise).
(The title page to The Canterbury Tales circa 1400)
He later returned to working for King Richard II’s government managing procurements and funding for building projects and salaries for workers. However, twice in the same week he was beaten and robbed while carrying his payroll. Thus he resigned his position after only two years. Then Chaucer appears to have retired to Greenwich, living off his pensions and annuities. Toward the end of his life, Chaucer’s literary works were becoming a source of national pride. One of his last writings was “A Complaint to his Purse” -a humorous praise of Henry who deposed King Richard, and the work also requested a reinstatement of Chaucer’s pension which was granted.
(A 19th century engraving of Geoffrey Chaucer by an unknown artist)
During the last year of Chaucer’s life he lived at Westminster Abbey in a room overlooking the garden (not an unusual thing for the church and monasteries to handle the enfeebled and elderly in need of ‘rest houses’). He died in 1400 around the age of sixty. He was buried at Westminster Abbey. Prior to Chaucer, a burial at Westminster Abbey was reserved only for royalty (dating back to Edward the Confessor in 1066). | 1,309 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Robert C. Weaver had a strong public record as a Civil Rights leader and a government official, but there was still some controversy when he became the first black nominated to a Cabinet-level position on this day in 1966.
President Lyndon Baines Johnson fought for and won congressional approval for Weaver, who was then 59 years old, with diminished opposition from southern Democrats. Five years earlier, President John F. Kennedy failed in a similar move.
Weaver was born on December 29, 1907 in segregated Washington, D.C. His grandfather was Dr. Robert Tanner Freeman, the first black to graduate from Harvard with a dentistry degree.
Robert Weaver followed in his grandfather’s footsteps to Harvard, and he had earned not one, but three, degrees by 1934, with a doctorate in economics.
Weaver returned home to work in President Franklin D. Roosevelt for Interior Secretary Harold Ickes, and Weaver soon became a member of what was called Roosevelt’s “Black Cabinet” as a specialist in housing issues and an adviser on minority affairs.
In 1940, Weaver helped settle an incident involving Roosevelt’s press secretary, Stephen Early, who had knocked over a black police officer during an incident in Washington.
The New York Times later recounted Weaver’s role in a 1997 obituary. An FDR aide had asked Weaver to assemble the Black Cabinet and write a speech that would appease blacks.
'I don't think a mere speech will do it. What we need right now is something so dramatic that it will make the Negro voters forget all about Steve Early and the Negro cop too,” Weaver said. Within a day, Benjamin O. Davis Sr. became the first black general in the Army and two other African Americans were appointed to prominent defense positions.
Weaver also worked to ensure that blacks were allowed to play an important role in the industrial war effort at home.
After leaving the Roosevelt Administration in 1944, Weaver held an array of important academic and leadership positions. He taught at Northwestern, Columbia, and New York Universities; worked for the John Hay Whitney Foundation; served as New York state's rent commissioner; and was briefly the national chairman of the NAACP.
After his election, President Kennedy named Weaver as the head of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, a subcabinet-level department that combined the Federal Housing Administration, the Urban Renewal Administration and the Federal National Mortgage Association.
Kennedy wanted to upgrade the agency to a Cabinet-level position in 1961 as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with Weaver as its leader. Southern Democrats and Republicans blocked the move in Congress and enacted a law that blocked the President’s power to create a new cabinet-level department.
By 1965, President Johnson made the new department a priority, but he reportedly hadn’t settled on Weaver has its head. Johnson was considering several other candidates until he received a report from his aides about Weaver’s success as a leader and team builder.
On January 13, 1966, President Johnson announced he wanted Weaver named as the newest member of his cabinet, as secretary of the new Housing and Urban Development department that had been created in September 1965. Four days later, the Senate confirmed Weaver to the position.
Weaver served through the rest of the Johnson administration before returning to the academic world, as president of Bernard Baruch College and as a professor at Hunter College, Carnegie-Mellon and New York University.
At the time of his passing in 1997, at the age of 90, Weaver was remembered for his many accomplishments.
“Weaver was known especially as a brilliant tactician of the black civil rights movement during its difficult early years,” said the Los Angeles Times.
“Dr. Weaver, who said that ‘’you cannot have physical renewal without human renewal,’ pushed for better-looking public housing by offering awards for design. He also increased the amount of money for small businesses displaced by urban renewal and revived the long-dormant idea of Federal rent subsidies for the elderly,” said The New York Times. | <urn:uuid:fa2e397d-4f70-4f7d-adf2-60b6f42e347c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/remember-the-first-black-cabinet-member | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00130.warc.gz | en | 0.980097 | 839 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.16710522770881653,
0.14789503812789917,
0.3580164313316345,
-0.10495883971452713,
0.05611349269747734,
0.26786720752716064,
0.12762922048568726,
-0.0577729158103466,
-0.2864270806312561,
-0.003732249140739441,
0.5783671140670776,
0.49476373195648193,
0.0012035100953653455,
0.62286478281... | 1 | Robert C. Weaver had a strong public record as a Civil Rights leader and a government official, but there was still some controversy when he became the first black nominated to a Cabinet-level position on this day in 1966.
President Lyndon Baines Johnson fought for and won congressional approval for Weaver, who was then 59 years old, with diminished opposition from southern Democrats. Five years earlier, President John F. Kennedy failed in a similar move.
Weaver was born on December 29, 1907 in segregated Washington, D.C. His grandfather was Dr. Robert Tanner Freeman, the first black to graduate from Harvard with a dentistry degree.
Robert Weaver followed in his grandfather’s footsteps to Harvard, and he had earned not one, but three, degrees by 1934, with a doctorate in economics.
Weaver returned home to work in President Franklin D. Roosevelt for Interior Secretary Harold Ickes, and Weaver soon became a member of what was called Roosevelt’s “Black Cabinet” as a specialist in housing issues and an adviser on minority affairs.
In 1940, Weaver helped settle an incident involving Roosevelt’s press secretary, Stephen Early, who had knocked over a black police officer during an incident in Washington.
The New York Times later recounted Weaver’s role in a 1997 obituary. An FDR aide had asked Weaver to assemble the Black Cabinet and write a speech that would appease blacks.
'I don't think a mere speech will do it. What we need right now is something so dramatic that it will make the Negro voters forget all about Steve Early and the Negro cop too,” Weaver said. Within a day, Benjamin O. Davis Sr. became the first black general in the Army and two other African Americans were appointed to prominent defense positions.
Weaver also worked to ensure that blacks were allowed to play an important role in the industrial war effort at home.
After leaving the Roosevelt Administration in 1944, Weaver held an array of important academic and leadership positions. He taught at Northwestern, Columbia, and New York Universities; worked for the John Hay Whitney Foundation; served as New York state's rent commissioner; and was briefly the national chairman of the NAACP.
After his election, President Kennedy named Weaver as the head of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, a subcabinet-level department that combined the Federal Housing Administration, the Urban Renewal Administration and the Federal National Mortgage Association.
Kennedy wanted to upgrade the agency to a Cabinet-level position in 1961 as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, with Weaver as its leader. Southern Democrats and Republicans blocked the move in Congress and enacted a law that blocked the President’s power to create a new cabinet-level department.
By 1965, President Johnson made the new department a priority, but he reportedly hadn’t settled on Weaver has its head. Johnson was considering several other candidates until he received a report from his aides about Weaver’s success as a leader and team builder.
On January 13, 1966, President Johnson announced he wanted Weaver named as the newest member of his cabinet, as secretary of the new Housing and Urban Development department that had been created in September 1965. Four days later, the Senate confirmed Weaver to the position.
Weaver served through the rest of the Johnson administration before returning to the academic world, as president of Bernard Baruch College and as a professor at Hunter College, Carnegie-Mellon and New York University.
At the time of his passing in 1997, at the age of 90, Weaver was remembered for his many accomplishments.
“Weaver was known especially as a brilliant tactician of the black civil rights movement during its difficult early years,” said the Los Angeles Times.
“Dr. Weaver, who said that ‘’you cannot have physical renewal without human renewal,’ pushed for better-looking public housing by offering awards for design. He also increased the amount of money for small businesses displaced by urban renewal and revived the long-dormant idea of Federal rent subsidies for the elderly,” said The New York Times. | 839 | ENGLISH | 1 |
According to a prophecy, Metis would bear two children, the first being Athena, while the second one, a son, would be so powerful that would overthrow Zeus. Zeus, afraid of this, tricked Metis into turning herself into a fly, and swallowed her. However, Metis was already pregnant to Athena, and, inside Zeus' stomach, she started creating a helmet for her daughter. Zeus was in such pain that he asked Hephaestus to hit his head with an axe; as soon as his head was opened, Athena jumped out fully grown and clad in armour. It is often said that Athena had no mother and she was born out of Zeus alone; this doesn't necessarily conflict with this account, as the ancient Greeks believed that children were descendants of the fathers, while mothers did not contribute to the creation of their children.
Link/cite this pageIf you use any of the content on this page in your own work, please use the code below to cite this page as the source of the content.
<a href="https://www.greekmythology.com/Titans/Metis/metis.html">Metis: GreekMythology.com</a> - Jan 17, 2020Link will appear as Metis: GreekMythology.com - Jan 17, 2020 | <urn:uuid:37c092c6-49ef-4dc4-bf58-678bc6152529> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.greekmythology.com/Titans/Metis/metis.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00451.warc.gz | en | 0.982397 | 269 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.12656724452972412,
-0.11297685652971268,
0.29450199007987976,
0.017125125974416733,
-0.6575024127960205,
-0.39261847734451294,
-0.14180238544940948,
0.7019839286804199,
-0.5012893676757812,
0.12089250981807709,
-0.13571831583976746,
-0.40237537026405334,
-0.2489548623561859,
0.379379659... | 1 | According to a prophecy, Metis would bear two children, the first being Athena, while the second one, a son, would be so powerful that would overthrow Zeus. Zeus, afraid of this, tricked Metis into turning herself into a fly, and swallowed her. However, Metis was already pregnant to Athena, and, inside Zeus' stomach, she started creating a helmet for her daughter. Zeus was in such pain that he asked Hephaestus to hit his head with an axe; as soon as his head was opened, Athena jumped out fully grown and clad in armour. It is often said that Athena had no mother and she was born out of Zeus alone; this doesn't necessarily conflict with this account, as the ancient Greeks believed that children were descendants of the fathers, while mothers did not contribute to the creation of their children.
Link/cite this pageIf you use any of the content on this page in your own work, please use the code below to cite this page as the source of the content.
<a href="https://www.greekmythology.com/Titans/Metis/metis.html">Metis: GreekMythology.com</a> - Jan 17, 2020Link will appear as Metis: GreekMythology.com - Jan 17, 2020 | 274 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Feminism can be roughly defined as a movement that seeks to enhance the quality of women’s lives by impacting the norms and moves of a society based on male dominance and subsequent female subordination. The means of change in the work place, politically, and domestically. Women have come a long way since the 19th century. Women have been trying to prove to the male dominant world that they are equal. They can perform and complete any tasks equal, or in some cases better than man. Feminism has changed the definition of men in many ways.
Women in the work place have transposed dramatically since the 19th and mid 20th century. Even if women had any education in the 19th century they were not allow to manifest any of it. It just was not proper for women to give any signs of intelligence and a brain of their own. They were to prepare themselves to become wives and mothers, which were the extent of their entire lives. In the early and mid 20th century some women were starting to be brave and take a stand for themselves. The beginnings of feminism were starting to take its massive role in society. More and more women were getting educated and looking for employment opportunities that had power. Men no longer can be in control of everything. Men in the work place started to feel impotent. But women fed off each other and gave each other strength. They were not looking for just the secretarial jobs; they were taking some men’s jobs and being good at it. They were becoming police officers, fireman, managers and business owners. Taking and sharing jobs with men, and performing just as well. For example, in the film Mr. Mom when the husband gets laid off work and the wife goes to work to support their family. It is very easy for a woman to do a man’s job but very difficult for a man to take over a woman’s duty at home.
Another way women have changed the definition of men is politically. Many years ago women were not allowed to vote. But women changed that in the early 1900’s. With the woman suffrage movement, it was a courageous and persistent political campaign, which lasted over 72 years, yet because of this women are allowed to vote today. This might have affected men greater than anything else, giving women power to vote and to actually give them a voice was ludicrous for men to allow. Ever since women have taken greater and greater roles in the political world. It was another sense of power or control men lost out in. In the reading Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, gives the voice of the many women who felt the same way she did. There was a need of change in society. But men too helped with the decision making of the 1900’s. The suffrage movement both included men as supporters and depended on men for their votes. The suffrage question often received tens of thousands of male votes of approval, and ultimately, a virtual all-male Senate and House had to approve the amendment, along with 36 virtually all-male state legislatures. Courageous men risked ridicule and worse to actively support women’s rights, and they offer far better role models today than many better-known political and military figures.
Domestically, women and men have changed their roles dramatically. There were no questions before who would do the household duties. Now men and women share them equally. Women do not accept the stereotyping of “you’re the wife you cook and clean.” Men share with the cleaning and the cooking, even with the diaper changing. There are still many men who will not perform any of these duties. They still believe it is a woman’s job. For instance, in the film Mr. Mom, Michael Keaton takes the role of the mother, but does a lousy job. The simplicity of changing a diaper is very difficult for him to do. But the fact that woman do not accept the husbands to sit around and do nothing anymore have changed men. Men know they can’t get away with it anymore. Oppose to back to just the
Several works by contemporary writers (Kissling, 1999; Lafky; 1999; Owen, 1999; Wayne; 2000) contrast the reading by Mellencamp (1986). Although written with almost two decades of intellectual development in feminist writings, there are parallels between the writings demonstrating that some things have not changed with time and development in feminist thinking. Whilst Mellencamp reviewed productions from the 1950's Owen and Lafky look into contemporary programs, in particular Buffy the Vampire slayer and Twin Peaks. Their discourses focus in different directions however the comparisons are amongst all writings are interesting not only in terms of observing the state of television programs which reflect different social tendencies, trends and desires for normative behaviour, it is also interesting comparison because of the development in the feminist debates surrounding those critiques. Mellencamp views the emergence of situational comedies in the 1950s US society as a secretive push by sections of women society in the US at the time to escape and subvert the male patriarchal dominance of the time with television narrative of humour.She presents it as a resistance, as the personalities of Lucy and Gracie where images of a suppressed ideal for many women who were drowned by the tide of society's push for an ideal woman being the quite housewife in the working father in the nuclear family model. It was a quite subversion as humour was acceptable to men and women equally and did not offend sensitivities of a dominant class. Not enough was made of this point, which it perhaps should have been.
Television programs produced decades later did not attempt to show a facade of unreal idealism, but rather has focused on a narrative where women, in particular young women, have independence of mind and power of self will (Owen, 1999; 25; Lafky, 1999; 7). The popular dramatic teen series such as Dawson’s Creek, Felicity, and Party of F… | <urn:uuid:0df6b8e2-919b-405b-8899-76ac062df927> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gemmarketingsolutions.com/feminism/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00342.warc.gz | en | 0.98428 | 1,221 | 3.75 | 4 | [
0.027867957949638367,
-0.07896853983402252,
0.18450620770454407,
0.26766258478164673,
-0.40643173456192017,
0.4132978320121765,
0.07802367955446243,
0.028560809791088104,
0.035254497081041336,
-0.10790438950061798,
0.08510789275169373,
0.06941960752010345,
0.15105758607387543,
-0.199598237... | 1 | Feminism can be roughly defined as a movement that seeks to enhance the quality of women’s lives by impacting the norms and moves of a society based on male dominance and subsequent female subordination. The means of change in the work place, politically, and domestically. Women have come a long way since the 19th century. Women have been trying to prove to the male dominant world that they are equal. They can perform and complete any tasks equal, or in some cases better than man. Feminism has changed the definition of men in many ways.
Women in the work place have transposed dramatically since the 19th and mid 20th century. Even if women had any education in the 19th century they were not allow to manifest any of it. It just was not proper for women to give any signs of intelligence and a brain of their own. They were to prepare themselves to become wives and mothers, which were the extent of their entire lives. In the early and mid 20th century some women were starting to be brave and take a stand for themselves. The beginnings of feminism were starting to take its massive role in society. More and more women were getting educated and looking for employment opportunities that had power. Men no longer can be in control of everything. Men in the work place started to feel impotent. But women fed off each other and gave each other strength. They were not looking for just the secretarial jobs; they were taking some men’s jobs and being good at it. They were becoming police officers, fireman, managers and business owners. Taking and sharing jobs with men, and performing just as well. For example, in the film Mr. Mom when the husband gets laid off work and the wife goes to work to support their family. It is very easy for a woman to do a man’s job but very difficult for a man to take over a woman’s duty at home.
Another way women have changed the definition of men is politically. Many years ago women were not allowed to vote. But women changed that in the early 1900’s. With the woman suffrage movement, it was a courageous and persistent political campaign, which lasted over 72 years, yet because of this women are allowed to vote today. This might have affected men greater than anything else, giving women power to vote and to actually give them a voice was ludicrous for men to allow. Ever since women have taken greater and greater roles in the political world. It was another sense of power or control men lost out in. In the reading Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, gives the voice of the many women who felt the same way she did. There was a need of change in society. But men too helped with the decision making of the 1900’s. The suffrage movement both included men as supporters and depended on men for their votes. The suffrage question often received tens of thousands of male votes of approval, and ultimately, a virtual all-male Senate and House had to approve the amendment, along with 36 virtually all-male state legislatures. Courageous men risked ridicule and worse to actively support women’s rights, and they offer far better role models today than many better-known political and military figures.
Domestically, women and men have changed their roles dramatically. There were no questions before who would do the household duties. Now men and women share them equally. Women do not accept the stereotyping of “you’re the wife you cook and clean.” Men share with the cleaning and the cooking, even with the diaper changing. There are still many men who will not perform any of these duties. They still believe it is a woman’s job. For instance, in the film Mr. Mom, Michael Keaton takes the role of the mother, but does a lousy job. The simplicity of changing a diaper is very difficult for him to do. But the fact that woman do not accept the husbands to sit around and do nothing anymore have changed men. Men know they can’t get away with it anymore. Oppose to back to just the
Several works by contemporary writers (Kissling, 1999; Lafky; 1999; Owen, 1999; Wayne; 2000) contrast the reading by Mellencamp (1986). Although written with almost two decades of intellectual development in feminist writings, there are parallels between the writings demonstrating that some things have not changed with time and development in feminist thinking. Whilst Mellencamp reviewed productions from the 1950's Owen and Lafky look into contemporary programs, in particular Buffy the Vampire slayer and Twin Peaks. Their discourses focus in different directions however the comparisons are amongst all writings are interesting not only in terms of observing the state of television programs which reflect different social tendencies, trends and desires for normative behaviour, it is also interesting comparison because of the development in the feminist debates surrounding those critiques. Mellencamp views the emergence of situational comedies in the 1950s US society as a secretive push by sections of women society in the US at the time to escape and subvert the male patriarchal dominance of the time with television narrative of humour.She presents it as a resistance, as the personalities of Lucy and Gracie where images of a suppressed ideal for many women who were drowned by the tide of society's push for an ideal woman being the quite housewife in the working father in the nuclear family model. It was a quite subversion as humour was acceptable to men and women equally and did not offend sensitivities of a dominant class. Not enough was made of this point, which it perhaps should have been.
Television programs produced decades later did not attempt to show a facade of unreal idealism, but rather has focused on a narrative where women, in particular young women, have independence of mind and power of self will (Owen, 1999; 25; Lafky, 1999; 7). The popular dramatic teen series such as Dawson’s Creek, Felicity, and Party of F… | 1,256 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In Florence, Italy a cathedral stands over the grave of its architect, Filippo Brunelleschi. The Cathedral of Florence that now serves as his monument was one of his largest architectural developments. Little is known about Filippo’s childhood because he was not very famous; however, later in life he made huge accomplishments in the field of architecture. Filippo Brunelleschi’s structures were considered glorious at the time and are still standing today.
Filippo Brunelleschi was born in 1377 in Florence, Italy. He had one older brother and one younger brother. His mom was Giuliana Spini and his dad was Ser Brunellesco di Lippo Lapi, who was a Florentine notary. Even though Brunelleschi never married, he had one adopted son, Buggiano. After Brunelleschi trained to be a sculptor and goldsmith, in 1398, he applied to make the bronze reliefs for the door of the Baptistery of Florence in 1401. Sometime around this time he picked up the nickname “Pippo” by his friends. He was competing against six sculptors, one of them being Lorenzo Ghiberti. Unfortunately, Filippo didn’t win; Lorenzo Ghiberti did. After he lost, Filippo decided to leave his sculpting and to focus on architecture, where he worked with gears, clocks, wheels, and weights and math. He became very successful in those two fields. He turned out to be an architect and a clockmaker, but he was still a goldsmith too. He was also the first engineer in the renaissance (“Filippo Brunelleschi 1377-1446”). He was the architect for the Cathedral of Florence, also called the Santa Maria del Fiore.
Later on, he started working on the Cathedral of Florence, one of his most prestigious works. He worked on the dome, which itself took about sixteen years to finish. Filippo barely got to see the ceremony of the first stone of the lantern on top of the cathedral being placed, because he died only a month later, on April 16, 1466. Why he died is not known, but it is thought to be of an illness. Filippo died in his house which he had lived in for his whole life, laying bedside with his adopted son and heir Buggiano (King 153). Filippo Brunelleschi had many accomplishments in his life.
During his long life, Brunelleschi made many contributions to architecture, clockmaking, and mathematics. Brunelleschi used his math skills to develop linear perspective, which was showing depth on a flat surface. One of his many accomplishments was writing a book on linear perspective titled Rules of Perspective, which helped many future architects. This book described how linear perspective works, which is that the lines that make up the picture all converge to one vanishing point. He also described how to show scale. He determined mathematically how to make an object seem far away by making it smaller to the precise measurement to match its distance (O’Connor 2). Filippo Brunelleschi’s... | <urn:uuid:4b97e205-7503-4a55-8d0c-f2d2dad0a053> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/the-life-of-filippo-brunelleschi-and-his-efforts-in-the-field-of-architecture | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250611127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123160903-20200123185903-00112.warc.gz | en | 0.990681 | 661 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.16130293905735016,
0.7002456188201904,
0.29401934146881104,
0.1687694489955902,
-0.7810530662536621,
-0.025290798395872116,
0.34344255924224854,
0.1798301488161087,
0.11247656494379044,
-0.021800411865115166,
-0.21413764357566833,
-0.10374397784471512,
0.48085302114486694,
0.37865734100... | 1 | In Florence, Italy a cathedral stands over the grave of its architect, Filippo Brunelleschi. The Cathedral of Florence that now serves as his monument was one of his largest architectural developments. Little is known about Filippo’s childhood because he was not very famous; however, later in life he made huge accomplishments in the field of architecture. Filippo Brunelleschi’s structures were considered glorious at the time and are still standing today.
Filippo Brunelleschi was born in 1377 in Florence, Italy. He had one older brother and one younger brother. His mom was Giuliana Spini and his dad was Ser Brunellesco di Lippo Lapi, who was a Florentine notary. Even though Brunelleschi never married, he had one adopted son, Buggiano. After Brunelleschi trained to be a sculptor and goldsmith, in 1398, he applied to make the bronze reliefs for the door of the Baptistery of Florence in 1401. Sometime around this time he picked up the nickname “Pippo” by his friends. He was competing against six sculptors, one of them being Lorenzo Ghiberti. Unfortunately, Filippo didn’t win; Lorenzo Ghiberti did. After he lost, Filippo decided to leave his sculpting and to focus on architecture, where he worked with gears, clocks, wheels, and weights and math. He became very successful in those two fields. He turned out to be an architect and a clockmaker, but he was still a goldsmith too. He was also the first engineer in the renaissance (“Filippo Brunelleschi 1377-1446”). He was the architect for the Cathedral of Florence, also called the Santa Maria del Fiore.
Later on, he started working on the Cathedral of Florence, one of his most prestigious works. He worked on the dome, which itself took about sixteen years to finish. Filippo barely got to see the ceremony of the first stone of the lantern on top of the cathedral being placed, because he died only a month later, on April 16, 1466. Why he died is not known, but it is thought to be of an illness. Filippo died in his house which he had lived in for his whole life, laying bedside with his adopted son and heir Buggiano (King 153). Filippo Brunelleschi had many accomplishments in his life.
During his long life, Brunelleschi made many contributions to architecture, clockmaking, and mathematics. Brunelleschi used his math skills to develop linear perspective, which was showing depth on a flat surface. One of his many accomplishments was writing a book on linear perspective titled Rules of Perspective, which helped many future architects. This book described how linear perspective works, which is that the lines that make up the picture all converge to one vanishing point. He also described how to show scale. He determined mathematically how to make an object seem far away by making it smaller to the precise measurement to match its distance (O’Connor 2). Filippo Brunelleschi’s... | 643 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Some fungi help plants to grow
- Fungi break down wood
- What do fungi do?
- Where can you find fungi?
- How old are fungi?
- How big are fungi?
- How are fruit bodies made
- What are we made of
- What are we
The First Fungi
Fungi have been on our planet for millions of years. They were here before the dinosaurs appeared and they were one of the few groups of living things to survive the two great extinctions!
To begin with fungi were simple microscopic organisms that lived in the great lakes and rivers that covered the earth. Soon they began to work with plants that grew in the rivers and lakes, forming close associations with them by growing fine threads around their roots.
Eventually this 'team effort' paid off and the fungi helped the plants to move from the water onto the land. These simple groups of fungi that helped plants to grow on the land are known as 'fungus roots' or 'mycorrhiza'.
Fungi continued to develop and today some groups of fungi produce fruit bodies from their fine threads (or mycelium). These are the parts of the fungus that we can see, as they are above the ground. Remember that the fruit body of a fungus is like the fruit of a flowering plant - its job is to protect and spread the fungal spores - just like the fruit of the apple tree protects and spreads the apple seeds. | <urn:uuid:c5e0aefe-7f82-402f-83cb-b2c7bd634753> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.britmycolsoc.org.uk/mycokids/how-old-are-fungi | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00273.warc.gz | en | 0.981897 | 301 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.056851305067539215,
-0.22008906304836273,
0.4851979911327362,
-0.5480095744132996,
0.4027644097805023,
-0.3266242742538452,
0.17544163763523102,
-0.0859915018081665,
-0.3932706415653229,
0.2759663462638855,
0.12394532561302185,
-0.3701907694339752,
-0.1137346625328064,
0.213467121124267... | 1 | - Some fungi help plants to grow
- Fungi break down wood
- What do fungi do?
- Where can you find fungi?
- How old are fungi?
- How big are fungi?
- How are fruit bodies made
- What are we made of
- What are we
The First Fungi
Fungi have been on our planet for millions of years. They were here before the dinosaurs appeared and they were one of the few groups of living things to survive the two great extinctions!
To begin with fungi were simple microscopic organisms that lived in the great lakes and rivers that covered the earth. Soon they began to work with plants that grew in the rivers and lakes, forming close associations with them by growing fine threads around their roots.
Eventually this 'team effort' paid off and the fungi helped the plants to move from the water onto the land. These simple groups of fungi that helped plants to grow on the land are known as 'fungus roots' or 'mycorrhiza'.
Fungi continued to develop and today some groups of fungi produce fruit bodies from their fine threads (or mycelium). These are the parts of the fungus that we can see, as they are above the ground. Remember that the fruit body of a fungus is like the fruit of a flowering plant - its job is to protect and spread the fungal spores - just like the fruit of the apple tree protects and spreads the apple seeds. | 289 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the figure of Charles were united the Habsburg claims to various territories that had passed to the dynasty thanks to the nuptial policies of his grandfather, Maximilian I.
Charles was the eldest son of Philip I (the Fair) and Joan (the Mad) of Castile. He was born in Ghent, where his father was acting as regent of the Low Countries, a group of territories that had passed to the Habsburg dynasty as part of the Burgundian inheritance transmitted by Charles’s paternal grandmother, Mary of Burgundy.
In his physical appearance Charles conformed to the classic Habsburg type that was particularly prevalent in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He had a narrow, elongated face dominated by an aquiline nose and a heavy, protruding lower jaw together with thick, fleshy lips. It is said that the deformation of his jaw was so extreme that he could not close his mouth properly and had problems with his speech. His rapid and staccato way of speaking made him trip over his tongue constantly and as a consequence he was hard to understand.
Charles grew up at the court of his aunt, Archduchess Margaret, in the Low Country city of Mechelen (Malines, traditionally known in English as Mechlin) together with his sisters Eleonora and Isabella. He was shaped to a great degree by Burgundian-Netherlandish culture. His parents were mostly absent, as the securing of their claim to the Spanish crown took priority. After the early death of his father in 1506 the latter’s claims to the throne passed to Charles. At first he remained in the Netherlands, where his aunt Margaret ruled as tutelary regent in his stead. In 1515 Charles attained his majority and was appointed sovereign. However, the fifteen-year-old prince was unable to cope with his duties and his aunt and her advisors therefore continued to administer the affairs of government.
Over the next few years, however, the focus of his interests switched to Spain. The ruler of the united kingdoms of Castile, Aragon and Granada was Charles’s maternal grandfather, Ferdinand of Aragon. Charles shared his claim on these thrones with his mother Joan, which led to considerable problems after the death of Ferdinand in 1516. It was only after lengthy negotiations that his claim was recognized by the Estates, Charles using his mother’s mental illness as an argument to establish his rule in Spain in her name. | <urn:uuid:397afb45-40e8-4af0-800c-c7bf95f04eeb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.habsburger.net/en/chapter/charles-v-heir-many-crowns | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00257.warc.gz | en | 0.993743 | 514 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.11492953449487686,
0.7729549407958984,
0.3343485891819,
-0.5294564366340637,
-0.1649918258190155,
-0.3057038187980652,
0.26929333806037903,
-0.06986138224601746,
0.0017445140983909369,
-0.19951796531677246,
0.09794233739376068,
-0.4308188259601593,
-0.007229665759950876,
0.0926267951726... | 1 | In the figure of Charles were united the Habsburg claims to various territories that had passed to the dynasty thanks to the nuptial policies of his grandfather, Maximilian I.
Charles was the eldest son of Philip I (the Fair) and Joan (the Mad) of Castile. He was born in Ghent, where his father was acting as regent of the Low Countries, a group of territories that had passed to the Habsburg dynasty as part of the Burgundian inheritance transmitted by Charles’s paternal grandmother, Mary of Burgundy.
In his physical appearance Charles conformed to the classic Habsburg type that was particularly prevalent in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. He had a narrow, elongated face dominated by an aquiline nose and a heavy, protruding lower jaw together with thick, fleshy lips. It is said that the deformation of his jaw was so extreme that he could not close his mouth properly and had problems with his speech. His rapid and staccato way of speaking made him trip over his tongue constantly and as a consequence he was hard to understand.
Charles grew up at the court of his aunt, Archduchess Margaret, in the Low Country city of Mechelen (Malines, traditionally known in English as Mechlin) together with his sisters Eleonora and Isabella. He was shaped to a great degree by Burgundian-Netherlandish culture. His parents were mostly absent, as the securing of their claim to the Spanish crown took priority. After the early death of his father in 1506 the latter’s claims to the throne passed to Charles. At first he remained in the Netherlands, where his aunt Margaret ruled as tutelary regent in his stead. In 1515 Charles attained his majority and was appointed sovereign. However, the fifteen-year-old prince was unable to cope with his duties and his aunt and her advisors therefore continued to administer the affairs of government.
Over the next few years, however, the focus of his interests switched to Spain. The ruler of the united kingdoms of Castile, Aragon and Granada was Charles’s maternal grandfather, Ferdinand of Aragon. Charles shared his claim on these thrones with his mother Joan, which led to considerable problems after the death of Ferdinand in 1516. It was only after lengthy negotiations that his claim was recognized by the Estates, Charles using his mother’s mental illness as an argument to establish his rule in Spain in her name. | 504 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The working of our political institutions is governed not only by the words of the Constitution but also by conventions, which are rules of practice regarded as binding by those to whom they apply, although not rules of law created by legislation or decisions of the courts. These rules have developed over the centuries within the framework of the written law in England and later in Australia, and have created the office of Prime Minister and the system of cabinet government, neither of which is mentioned in the Constitution.
The conventions have a critical part to play in relation to the powers of the Governor-General. The express words of the Constitution confer on the Governor-General very wide powers. No proposed law which has been passed by the Parliament becomes law unless the Governor-General assents to it. The Governor-General may decide when the Parliament shall sit and may prorogue the Parliament and dissolve the House of Representatives and may in certain circumstances dissolve both Houses simultaneously. A general election of the members of the House of Representatives will be held only if the Governor-General issues the necessary writs. The executive power of the Commonwealth, which extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth, is exercisable by the Governor-General. The members of the Federal Executive Council and the Ministers of State are appointed by the Governor-General and hold office during the Governor-General’s pleasure. The Governor-General is Commander in Chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth. If these powers were not controlled by conventions, they would allow the Governor-General, if he wished, to dismiss one government and appoint another, to close down the parliament and to refuse assent to the laws which Parliament sought to pass and decline to enforce laws that had been enacted. He could make his will effective if the need arose by calling out the troops. If these powers could be exercised by the Governor-General at his discretion, as the words of the Constitution suggest, he would have the powers of a dictator.
However, the exercise of these powers is controlled by the conventions, which require that generally the powers should be exercised by the Governor-General only on ministerial advice. According to the conventions, however, there are some powers which the Governor-General may exercise according to his own discretion, and without the advice, or even contrary to the advice, of the Ministry. These powers, which are rather misleadingly called ‘reserve powers’, are designed to ensure that the powers of the Parliament and the Executive are operated in accordance with the principles of responsible government and representative democracy, or in other words, to ensure that the Ministry is responsible to Parliament and that the ultimate supremacy of the electorate will prevail. The reserve powers provide an essential check against abuse of power by the Executive or by Parliament. In Australia, because of the provisions of the Constitution which protect representative democracy and limit the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, and the entrenched position of the High Court, it is unlikely that the reserve powers will need to be invoked against the Commonwealth Parliament, but they fill a real need in relation to the Executive.
Some of the reserve powers are beyond dispute, but the existence or scope of others remains controversial. Unexpected political crises which appear to call for the exercise of the reserve powers sometimes raise problems never previously encountered and, as has been said, Governors-General ‘have to act as umpires in a game where unexpected situations may arise which are not fully covered by any generally accepted book of rules’.
State Governors similarly have reserve powers, although in some States the position is affected by constitutional amendment.
The following reserve powers are clearly available to a Governor-General:
to appoint as Prime Minister, after an election or on the death or resignation of a Prime Minister, a person who might be expected to command the support of a majority in the House of Representatives; to dismiss a Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of the House of Representatives, or who is attempting to govern without supply, and who refuses to resign or advise a dissolution of the House; to dissolve the House of Representatives (or in some circumstances both Houses) following the dismissal of a Prime Minister, and in such a case, to appoint a caretaker Prime Minister; to refuse to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Representatives; to dismiss a Prime Minister who is acting illegally; some writers claim that this power may only be exercised if the law that has been broken is a constitutional one, or alternatively, if the breach cannot be remedied in the courts; to dismiss, in certain circumstances, a Prime Minister who threatens to govern without supply.
In addition the Governor-General may have the following reserve powers:
to refuse to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve both Houses of Parliament simultaneously; to refuse to assent to a proposed law; exceptional circumstances would be necessary to justify the exercise of this power.
An occasion for the exercise of the reserve powers does not arise every day, although a study has shown that their exercise has been surprisingly frequent in the various jurisdictions in which the so-called Westminster system of government applies. Some examples of their exercise in Australia are as follows.
The power of the Governor-General to appoint a Prime Minister after the death or resignation of the former holder of the office has been exercised on at least four occasions.
The power to appoint a Prime Minister after an election is qualified by the convention that the Governor-General should appoint the acknowledged leader of the party (or coalition) that has secured a majority of seats. When no party leader is in that position the Governor-General has a discretion. This situation occurred in a State Parliament in Tasmania in 1989. As the result of an election the Liberal Party, to which the Premier belonged, won 17 seats, Labor 13 and the Greens 5. The Governor declined to grant the Premier a dissolution and instead commissioned the leader of the Labor Party, on being satisfied that, with the support of the Greens, he could form a government which would enjoy the confidence of the House for a reasonable period.
Three of the reserve powers were exercised together in 1909 when, after a motion of no-confidence moved against the Prime Minister, Mr Andrew Fisher, had been carried, the Governor-General refused to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Representatives, dismissed Mr Fisher and commissioned Mr Alfred Deakin as Prime Minister. The Governor-General has refused a dissolution on a number of other occasions.
Many exercises of the reserve powers have been quite uncontroversial; indeed they have seemed so appropriate that they have occasioned little remark. Two, however, have given rise to controversy. In 1932 the Governor of New South Wales dismissed the Premier, Mr Jack Lang, for acting in contravention of the laws of the Commonwealth. It has been argued that the conditions of the exercise of the power of dismissal in such a case were not satisfied, although Mr Lang appears to have accepted his dismissal with grace, perhaps even with relief. In 1975, the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, who was threatening to govern without supply. Some have argued that the action was premature, because supply had not yet been formally denied although there is no doubt that the Governor-General could have exercised the power once supply had been refused. The contrary argument is that in the circumstances the dismissal was necessary to avoid economic chaos and possibly social unrest, since the failure of the Senate to pass the necessary Supply bills and the fact that no election could be held before the existing supply would have run out, meant that the Government would soon be unable to pay its public servants (including the armed forces) and contractors and was preparing nevertheless to continue to govern. The outcome was that a caretaker Prime Minister was appointed and obtained supply, and an election was held which returned the caretaker Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to office. Surely the result was a democratic one. However, if an attempt were made to reduce the conventions to a code, it is unlikely that agreement could be reached on the question whether the Governor-General could dismiss a Prime Minister who had the confidence of the House of Representatives but had not been granted supply by the Senate.
An unusual exercise (or perhaps threatened exercise) of the reserve powers was made by the Governor of Queensland in 1987. The Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who appeared to be losing the confidence of his own party, and who wished to get rid of some of his Ministers, told the Governor he proposed to resign, with the intention of forming a new Ministry, but the Governor informed him that if he resigned he would not necessarily be re-appointed. The Premier did not then resign, but after these events he lost the confidence of the Parliament and his position as Premier.
The constitutional conventions, including those covering the reserve powers, are not fixed in their present form and free from change; they may evolve in response to changing circumstances, particularly where the circumstances had not been foreseen.
The strength of the Australian Constitution, which is exceptional in the length of time for which it has endured and the stability of the community which it governs, is due, in no small part, to the checks and balances for which it provides. The existence of the reserve powers is one such check, and as has been mentioned, an essential one. It makes it possible to find an acceptable democratic solution of a question upon which it is impossible to reach political agreement, particularly when political tempers may run high. If Australia were to become a republic, it would be necessary that the reserve powers should be available to the President. However, the conventions which relate to the reserve powers would not necessarily apply under a republic, because they have developed under a constitutional monarchy, and are exercised by the Monarch and Her representatives. It is not easy to decide how they could be made applicable under a republic. It would be difficult to codify them, because some are controversial, and all are subject to change as the constitutional situation evolves. In any case it would probably be politically impossible to reach agreement as to the content of a code. The course taken by the Bill to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic (Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic 1999) has been to provide as follows (by clause 59):
‘The President on the advice of the Federal Executive Council, the Prime Minister or another Minister of State; but the President may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the Governor-General in accordance with the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of that power.
This provision would bring about a substantial change – it would have the result that the questions of what were the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise by the Governor-General of a reserve power, and whether the President had exercised his powers in accordance with those conventions, could be decided in the courts. The discretion of the President would thus be rendered subject to judicial review. The prevailing legal opinion is that the reserve powers are not justiciable, that is to say, questions as to the existence or scope of a power and whether it has been properly exercised cannot be decided by the courts. Some legal writers have expressed a different view, but the balance of authority is against them. It has been held, in the Privy Council and by the Supreme Court of Canada in a most important case, that the powers are not justiciable. There is no decision to the contrary. The change that would result if the Bill becomes law would mean that a swift and flexible method of resolving some constitutional difficulties or checking violations by the Executive of constitutional principle would be removed, and instead the matter would become one to be resolved by litigation. The delay that could result could disrupt government in a time of crisis.
The difficulty that the courts would face if the Bill were passed would be increased by another provision of the Bill. That is Schedule 3, Clause 8, which provides:
The enactment of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic 1999) does not prevent the evolution of the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of the reserve powers referred to in Section 59 of this Constitution.
It is far from clear what will be the effect of this section and Section 59 together, particularly when the reserve power in question is claimed to result from an evolution, after the office of Governor-General had ceased to exist, of a power which existed when there was a Governor-General.
It is obvious that it is essential that the person exercising the reserve powers should be completely independent, impartial and free from political influence. Governors-General have, in Australia, without exception, acted independently in the exercise of their reserve powers. The Constitution does not provide for the dismissal of a Governor-General. The Queen could of course revoke his commission but it is inconceivable that she would do so without strong reason. The Governor-General is in fact in a position of secure independence. That will not be true of a President. Under the proposed constitution, the Prime Minister may, by instrument signed by the Prime Minister, remove the President with effect immediately (Clause 62). Clause 62 provides further:
A Prime Minister who removes a President must seek the approval of the House of Representatives for the removal of the President within thirty days after the removal, unless:
within that period, the House expires or is dissolved; or before the removal, the House had expired or been dissolved but a general election of Members of the House had not taken place.
The failure of the House of Representatives to approve the removal of the President does not operate to reinstate the President who was removed.
Supporters of a republic argue that the power of the Prime Minister to effect an immediate removal without cause is the same in substance as the present position. It is said the Queen would act always on the advice of the Prime Minister to remove a Governor-General. There are serious flaws in this argument. In the first place, it is not beyond controversy that the Queen would act on such advice if it appeared that there was no valid cause for removing the Governor-General. More important is the fact that the Queen would not be obliged to act on such advice on the instant but could take time to consider the matter. In any case the Queen might require advice be submitted to Her in writing. Events that occurred in 1991 in Papua-New Guinea suggest that written advice is necessary. The Prime Minister recommended for good cause the removal of the Governor-General. It was deemed necessary to send a courier from Papua-New Guinea with a message to Her Majesty containing the advice, but in fact the Governor-General resigned before the courier had got as far as London. If there was delay in obtaining a decision from the Queen, the Governor-General would have time to dismiss the Prime Minister. Under the proposed Constitution, the Prime Minister could at any time remove the President without cause and without warning, and the removal would take effect immediately. In a political crisis, if the President had warned the Prime Minister that if he persisted in his course of conduct he would be liable to be dismissed (and of course in some circumstances it would be desirable to give such a warning) or even if the Prime Minister imagined that he might be dismissed, the Prime Minister (who if prudent might carry a signed instrument of removal with him) could effect the immediate removal of the President. The fact that the Prime Minister would be required to obtain the approval of the House of Representatives would not help the President, for the failure to obtain such approval would not result in his reinstatement. The power of the Prime Minister without cause or notice to remove a President with immediate effect would completely undermine the independence which should attach to the office of President. Nowhere else in the world is a President liable to such peremptory removal. The result might well be that a President would be unlikely to exercise the reserve powers in a manner contrary to the wishes of the Prime Minister, or if he attempted to do so, would be removed. The reserve powers at present provide the Governor-General with the power to ensure that the Executive acts in accordance with constitutional principle. It would be only theoretically true to say that the President would have the same power. The reserve powers would in effect be rendered null.
For the reasons given above, the provisions of the Bill relating to the reserve powers and the removal of the President would, if enacted, result in Australia having a constitution different from the present in significant respects. The President would perform his duties under the shadow of removal by the Prime Minister. One of the valuable checks on the Executive provided by the present Constitution would be removed. The Constitution would be seriously flawed. | <urn:uuid:42c4198f-57ee-46f6-9869-00a3ecf10637> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://norepublic.com.au/reserve-powers-of-the-governor-general-and-the-provisions-for-dismissal-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00091.warc.gz | en | 0.98025 | 3,355 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.5804315209388733,
0.18141178786754608,
0.48768675327301025,
-0.3293580114841461,
-0.2161010503768921,
0.35042810440063477,
0.42636042833328247,
-0.20676524937152863,
-0.2504768967628479,
0.4440035820007324,
-0.25764578580856323,
0.015733888372778893,
0.13488435745239258,
0.3326606452465... | 6 | The working of our political institutions is governed not only by the words of the Constitution but also by conventions, which are rules of practice regarded as binding by those to whom they apply, although not rules of law created by legislation or decisions of the courts. These rules have developed over the centuries within the framework of the written law in England and later in Australia, and have created the office of Prime Minister and the system of cabinet government, neither of which is mentioned in the Constitution.
The conventions have a critical part to play in relation to the powers of the Governor-General. The express words of the Constitution confer on the Governor-General very wide powers. No proposed law which has been passed by the Parliament becomes law unless the Governor-General assents to it. The Governor-General may decide when the Parliament shall sit and may prorogue the Parliament and dissolve the House of Representatives and may in certain circumstances dissolve both Houses simultaneously. A general election of the members of the House of Representatives will be held only if the Governor-General issues the necessary writs. The executive power of the Commonwealth, which extends to the execution and maintenance of the Constitution and the laws of the Commonwealth, is exercisable by the Governor-General. The members of the Federal Executive Council and the Ministers of State are appointed by the Governor-General and hold office during the Governor-General’s pleasure. The Governor-General is Commander in Chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth. If these powers were not controlled by conventions, they would allow the Governor-General, if he wished, to dismiss one government and appoint another, to close down the parliament and to refuse assent to the laws which Parliament sought to pass and decline to enforce laws that had been enacted. He could make his will effective if the need arose by calling out the troops. If these powers could be exercised by the Governor-General at his discretion, as the words of the Constitution suggest, he would have the powers of a dictator.
However, the exercise of these powers is controlled by the conventions, which require that generally the powers should be exercised by the Governor-General only on ministerial advice. According to the conventions, however, there are some powers which the Governor-General may exercise according to his own discretion, and without the advice, or even contrary to the advice, of the Ministry. These powers, which are rather misleadingly called ‘reserve powers’, are designed to ensure that the powers of the Parliament and the Executive are operated in accordance with the principles of responsible government and representative democracy, or in other words, to ensure that the Ministry is responsible to Parliament and that the ultimate supremacy of the electorate will prevail. The reserve powers provide an essential check against abuse of power by the Executive or by Parliament. In Australia, because of the provisions of the Constitution which protect representative democracy and limit the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution, and the entrenched position of the High Court, it is unlikely that the reserve powers will need to be invoked against the Commonwealth Parliament, but they fill a real need in relation to the Executive.
Some of the reserve powers are beyond dispute, but the existence or scope of others remains controversial. Unexpected political crises which appear to call for the exercise of the reserve powers sometimes raise problems never previously encountered and, as has been said, Governors-General ‘have to act as umpires in a game where unexpected situations may arise which are not fully covered by any generally accepted book of rules’.
State Governors similarly have reserve powers, although in some States the position is affected by constitutional amendment.
The following reserve powers are clearly available to a Governor-General:
to appoint as Prime Minister, after an election or on the death or resignation of a Prime Minister, a person who might be expected to command the support of a majority in the House of Representatives; to dismiss a Prime Minister who has lost the confidence of the House of Representatives, or who is attempting to govern without supply, and who refuses to resign or advise a dissolution of the House; to dissolve the House of Representatives (or in some circumstances both Houses) following the dismissal of a Prime Minister, and in such a case, to appoint a caretaker Prime Minister; to refuse to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Representatives; to dismiss a Prime Minister who is acting illegally; some writers claim that this power may only be exercised if the law that has been broken is a constitutional one, or alternatively, if the breach cannot be remedied in the courts; to dismiss, in certain circumstances, a Prime Minister who threatens to govern without supply.
In addition the Governor-General may have the following reserve powers:
to refuse to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve both Houses of Parliament simultaneously; to refuse to assent to a proposed law; exceptional circumstances would be necessary to justify the exercise of this power.
An occasion for the exercise of the reserve powers does not arise every day, although a study has shown that their exercise has been surprisingly frequent in the various jurisdictions in which the so-called Westminster system of government applies. Some examples of their exercise in Australia are as follows.
The power of the Governor-General to appoint a Prime Minister after the death or resignation of the former holder of the office has been exercised on at least four occasions.
The power to appoint a Prime Minister after an election is qualified by the convention that the Governor-General should appoint the acknowledged leader of the party (or coalition) that has secured a majority of seats. When no party leader is in that position the Governor-General has a discretion. This situation occurred in a State Parliament in Tasmania in 1989. As the result of an election the Liberal Party, to which the Premier belonged, won 17 seats, Labor 13 and the Greens 5. The Governor declined to grant the Premier a dissolution and instead commissioned the leader of the Labor Party, on being satisfied that, with the support of the Greens, he could form a government which would enjoy the confidence of the House for a reasonable period.
Three of the reserve powers were exercised together in 1909 when, after a motion of no-confidence moved against the Prime Minister, Mr Andrew Fisher, had been carried, the Governor-General refused to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Representatives, dismissed Mr Fisher and commissioned Mr Alfred Deakin as Prime Minister. The Governor-General has refused a dissolution on a number of other occasions.
Many exercises of the reserve powers have been quite uncontroversial; indeed they have seemed so appropriate that they have occasioned little remark. Two, however, have given rise to controversy. In 1932 the Governor of New South Wales dismissed the Premier, Mr Jack Lang, for acting in contravention of the laws of the Commonwealth. It has been argued that the conditions of the exercise of the power of dismissal in such a case were not satisfied, although Mr Lang appears to have accepted his dismissal with grace, perhaps even with relief. In 1975, the Governor-General dismissed the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, who was threatening to govern without supply. Some have argued that the action was premature, because supply had not yet been formally denied although there is no doubt that the Governor-General could have exercised the power once supply had been refused. The contrary argument is that in the circumstances the dismissal was necessary to avoid economic chaos and possibly social unrest, since the failure of the Senate to pass the necessary Supply bills and the fact that no election could be held before the existing supply would have run out, meant that the Government would soon be unable to pay its public servants (including the armed forces) and contractors and was preparing nevertheless to continue to govern. The outcome was that a caretaker Prime Minister was appointed and obtained supply, and an election was held which returned the caretaker Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to office. Surely the result was a democratic one. However, if an attempt were made to reduce the conventions to a code, it is unlikely that agreement could be reached on the question whether the Governor-General could dismiss a Prime Minister who had the confidence of the House of Representatives but had not been granted supply by the Senate.
An unusual exercise (or perhaps threatened exercise) of the reserve powers was made by the Governor of Queensland in 1987. The Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, who appeared to be losing the confidence of his own party, and who wished to get rid of some of his Ministers, told the Governor he proposed to resign, with the intention of forming a new Ministry, but the Governor informed him that if he resigned he would not necessarily be re-appointed. The Premier did not then resign, but after these events he lost the confidence of the Parliament and his position as Premier.
The constitutional conventions, including those covering the reserve powers, are not fixed in their present form and free from change; they may evolve in response to changing circumstances, particularly where the circumstances had not been foreseen.
The strength of the Australian Constitution, which is exceptional in the length of time for which it has endured and the stability of the community which it governs, is due, in no small part, to the checks and balances for which it provides. The existence of the reserve powers is one such check, and as has been mentioned, an essential one. It makes it possible to find an acceptable democratic solution of a question upon which it is impossible to reach political agreement, particularly when political tempers may run high. If Australia were to become a republic, it would be necessary that the reserve powers should be available to the President. However, the conventions which relate to the reserve powers would not necessarily apply under a republic, because they have developed under a constitutional monarchy, and are exercised by the Monarch and Her representatives. It is not easy to decide how they could be made applicable under a republic. It would be difficult to codify them, because some are controversial, and all are subject to change as the constitutional situation evolves. In any case it would probably be politically impossible to reach agreement as to the content of a code. The course taken by the Bill to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic (Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic 1999) has been to provide as follows (by clause 59):
‘The President on the advice of the Federal Executive Council, the Prime Minister or another Minister of State; but the President may exercise a power that was a reserve power of the Governor-General in accordance with the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of that power.
This provision would bring about a substantial change – it would have the result that the questions of what were the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise by the Governor-General of a reserve power, and whether the President had exercised his powers in accordance with those conventions, could be decided in the courts. The discretion of the President would thus be rendered subject to judicial review. The prevailing legal opinion is that the reserve powers are not justiciable, that is to say, questions as to the existence or scope of a power and whether it has been properly exercised cannot be decided by the courts. Some legal writers have expressed a different view, but the balance of authority is against them. It has been held, in the Privy Council and by the Supreme Court of Canada in a most important case, that the powers are not justiciable. There is no decision to the contrary. The change that would result if the Bill becomes law would mean that a swift and flexible method of resolving some constitutional difficulties or checking violations by the Executive of constitutional principle would be removed, and instead the matter would become one to be resolved by litigation. The delay that could result could disrupt government in a time of crisis.
The difficulty that the courts would face if the Bill were passed would be increased by another provision of the Bill. That is Schedule 3, Clause 8, which provides:
The enactment of the Constitution Alteration (Establishment of Republic 1999) does not prevent the evolution of the constitutional conventions relating to the exercise of the reserve powers referred to in Section 59 of this Constitution.
It is far from clear what will be the effect of this section and Section 59 together, particularly when the reserve power in question is claimed to result from an evolution, after the office of Governor-General had ceased to exist, of a power which existed when there was a Governor-General.
It is obvious that it is essential that the person exercising the reserve powers should be completely independent, impartial and free from political influence. Governors-General have, in Australia, without exception, acted independently in the exercise of their reserve powers. The Constitution does not provide for the dismissal of a Governor-General. The Queen could of course revoke his commission but it is inconceivable that she would do so without strong reason. The Governor-General is in fact in a position of secure independence. That will not be true of a President. Under the proposed constitution, the Prime Minister may, by instrument signed by the Prime Minister, remove the President with effect immediately (Clause 62). Clause 62 provides further:
A Prime Minister who removes a President must seek the approval of the House of Representatives for the removal of the President within thirty days after the removal, unless:
within that period, the House expires or is dissolved; or before the removal, the House had expired or been dissolved but a general election of Members of the House had not taken place.
The failure of the House of Representatives to approve the removal of the President does not operate to reinstate the President who was removed.
Supporters of a republic argue that the power of the Prime Minister to effect an immediate removal without cause is the same in substance as the present position. It is said the Queen would act always on the advice of the Prime Minister to remove a Governor-General. There are serious flaws in this argument. In the first place, it is not beyond controversy that the Queen would act on such advice if it appeared that there was no valid cause for removing the Governor-General. More important is the fact that the Queen would not be obliged to act on such advice on the instant but could take time to consider the matter. In any case the Queen might require advice be submitted to Her in writing. Events that occurred in 1991 in Papua-New Guinea suggest that written advice is necessary. The Prime Minister recommended for good cause the removal of the Governor-General. It was deemed necessary to send a courier from Papua-New Guinea with a message to Her Majesty containing the advice, but in fact the Governor-General resigned before the courier had got as far as London. If there was delay in obtaining a decision from the Queen, the Governor-General would have time to dismiss the Prime Minister. Under the proposed Constitution, the Prime Minister could at any time remove the President without cause and without warning, and the removal would take effect immediately. In a political crisis, if the President had warned the Prime Minister that if he persisted in his course of conduct he would be liable to be dismissed (and of course in some circumstances it would be desirable to give such a warning) or even if the Prime Minister imagined that he might be dismissed, the Prime Minister (who if prudent might carry a signed instrument of removal with him) could effect the immediate removal of the President. The fact that the Prime Minister would be required to obtain the approval of the House of Representatives would not help the President, for the failure to obtain such approval would not result in his reinstatement. The power of the Prime Minister without cause or notice to remove a President with immediate effect would completely undermine the independence which should attach to the office of President. Nowhere else in the world is a President liable to such peremptory removal. The result might well be that a President would be unlikely to exercise the reserve powers in a manner contrary to the wishes of the Prime Minister, or if he attempted to do so, would be removed. The reserve powers at present provide the Governor-General with the power to ensure that the Executive acts in accordance with constitutional principle. It would be only theoretically true to say that the President would have the same power. The reserve powers would in effect be rendered null.
For the reasons given above, the provisions of the Bill relating to the reserve powers and the removal of the President would, if enacted, result in Australia having a constitution different from the present in significant respects. The President would perform his duties under the shadow of removal by the Prime Minister. One of the valuable checks on the Executive provided by the present Constitution would be removed. The Constitution would be seriously flawed. | 3,327 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What is Vision?
Vision is the deriving of meaning and direction of action as triggered by light. Vision is much more than sight or how clearly one sees, which is commonly measured and termed acuity and is better called sight. Vision is one's comprehensive ability to organize that which can be seen in such a way that one understands what is seen and can use that understanding to guide and direct one's actions to achieve the things wanted and needed to survive and to enjoy life.
What is vision? Arthur Zajonc catches the essence of the totality of vision in the opening paragraphs of his book, Catching the Light - The Entwined History of Light and Mind. He recounts the life of an 8-year old boy, blind since birth because of cataracts, on whom surgery was performed to restore sight.
"Following the operation, they were anxious to discover how well the child could see. When the boy's eyes were healed, they removed the bandages. Waving a hand in front of the child's physically perfect eyes, they asked him what he saw. He replied weakly, 'I don't know.' 'Don't you see it moving?' they asked. 'I don't know' was his only reply. The boy's eyes were clearly not following the slowly moving hand. What he saw was only a varying brightness in front of him. He was then allowed to touch the hand as it began to move; he cried out in a voice of triumph; 'It's moving!' He could feel it move, and even, as he said, 'hear it move,' but he still needed laboriously to learn to see it move. Light and eyes were not enough to grant him sight. The light of day beckoned, but no light of mind replied within the boy's anxious, open eyes. The lights of nature and of mind entwine within the eye and call forth vision."
Vision is much more than the ability to see small detail at great distances. It is the total ability to organize light input and recognize spatial relationships between things and to build an internal representation of reality. From that internal representation of reality, which is by its very nature incomplete, vision provides the organism with the information necessary to make decisions about which actions to take and in what precise way to execute the chosen action.
To do this the person needs to extract huge quantities of information and data from nearly all parts of the body and use all the sensory input available from the external world. This | <urn:uuid:ac0e4f5a-0abf-4bec-903f-b0833cd7b753> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.oepf.org/reference/article/behavioral-vision-care-chapter-1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00029.warc.gz | en | 0.983688 | 506 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.06483897566795349,
-0.1332622617483139,
-0.18686598539352417,
0.15601536631584167,
-0.24745622277259827,
0.5193552374839783,
0.9649344086647034,
0.23341067135334015,
-0.25446727871894836,
0.29890409111976624,
0.4225395917892456,
-0.5374062657356262,
-0.29734355211257935,
0.31446218490600... | 2 | What is Vision?
Vision is the deriving of meaning and direction of action as triggered by light. Vision is much more than sight or how clearly one sees, which is commonly measured and termed acuity and is better called sight. Vision is one's comprehensive ability to organize that which can be seen in such a way that one understands what is seen and can use that understanding to guide and direct one's actions to achieve the things wanted and needed to survive and to enjoy life.
What is vision? Arthur Zajonc catches the essence of the totality of vision in the opening paragraphs of his book, Catching the Light - The Entwined History of Light and Mind. He recounts the life of an 8-year old boy, blind since birth because of cataracts, on whom surgery was performed to restore sight.
"Following the operation, they were anxious to discover how well the child could see. When the boy's eyes were healed, they removed the bandages. Waving a hand in front of the child's physically perfect eyes, they asked him what he saw. He replied weakly, 'I don't know.' 'Don't you see it moving?' they asked. 'I don't know' was his only reply. The boy's eyes were clearly not following the slowly moving hand. What he saw was only a varying brightness in front of him. He was then allowed to touch the hand as it began to move; he cried out in a voice of triumph; 'It's moving!' He could feel it move, and even, as he said, 'hear it move,' but he still needed laboriously to learn to see it move. Light and eyes were not enough to grant him sight. The light of day beckoned, but no light of mind replied within the boy's anxious, open eyes. The lights of nature and of mind entwine within the eye and call forth vision."
Vision is much more than the ability to see small detail at great distances. It is the total ability to organize light input and recognize spatial relationships between things and to build an internal representation of reality. From that internal representation of reality, which is by its very nature incomplete, vision provides the organism with the information necessary to make decisions about which actions to take and in what precise way to execute the chosen action.
To do this the person needs to extract huge quantities of information and data from nearly all parts of the body and use all the sensory input available from the external world. This | 500 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Daniel Defoe’s acclaimed novel, Robinson Crusoe, is not only a great adventurous novel, but an amazing reflection of Defoe’s moral beliefs, personal experiences, and political battles with the English monarchy. Throughout the course of this novel, references to defoe’s own experiences come up again and again. In addition to these numerous references, the general story line of Robinson Crusoe tells a similar story to that of Defoe’s actual life; slightly reminiscent of the prodigal son theme.
Daniel Defoe used realism to enhance his novel. While many critics agree with this statement, some think that he should have been more accurate with his realism. Critics also found the book to be very enlightening and beneficial to read and they found that it appealed to a very wide variety of people including the rich and poor, and the young and old. Last but not least, some critics found that it showed lack of ability to create characters and events.
Daniel Defoe was born to James and Mary Defoe in St. Gates, London in 1660. His family were all Dissenters, also known as Presbyterians. He had a very good education and his father hoped that he would become a minister, but he chose to become a merchant after he graduated from his schooling. Defoe’s mother died when he was just ten years old, then his father sent him to a boarding school (Moore 1). He was then educated at the Morton Academy,a school fo dissenters(Harvey 215) ,where he was a very good student, and his teacher, the Reverend Me. Norton himself, would later show up as a character in some of Daniel’s fiction.(www.pinkmonkey.com) One year later he married Mary Tuffley, daughter of another dissenter, and also became involved in the Duke of Monmouth‘s rebellion, which was attempting to take the throne from James II. The rebellion ended up a failure and as a result three of Defoes former schoolmates were caught and hanged, but Defoe narrowly escaped the King’s soldiers. (Moor 1)
To the outside world, Defoe seemed to continue to prosper after the Monmouth Rebellion, but by 1692, Daniel had gone bankrupt and ended up owing over 17,000 pounds because of eight separate lawsuits between 1688 and 1692, and though he paid off all but 5,000 pounds within ten years, he was never truly free of debt (Moore 1). Then, writing started to become a larger part of his life. In 1701, he wrote a satyrical poem called The True-Born Englishman which became the best-selling poem ever at that time. (Moore 1) In 1706, he returned to Scotland and started up a newspaper in Edinburgh called the Post-Man (Moore 2), where he earned the title of ‘The Father of Journalism’. However, the following year The Act of Union was made official (Moore 2) and as a result Defoe lost his job. In 1719, the first volume of Robinson Crusoe was published and became and instant hit, especially with the middle and lower class citizens. After his success with Robinson Crusoe, he published Moll Flanders in 1722, using his experiences in Newgate prison to add realism. Daniel used to go to prison cells and even the scaffold to receive manuscripts for these lives of criminals themselves. Finally, he died on April 24, 1731 in Cripplegate of lethargy (Moore 2).
His first successful novel, Robinson Crusoe, was a very huge hit. It was about a man named Robinson who, even against his father’s wishes, became a sailor. On one of his voyages he became shipwrecked on a deserted island and was the sole survivor, much the way defoe saw himself. Then, he realized that he wasn’t the only one on the island, much like the Monmouth rebellion. He found a group of cannibals and rescued one of them who, in turn, became his servant. He named him Friday and taught him the ways of Christianity. Then, twenty-eight years later, there was quite a rustle on a ship near by. The crew of the ship had mutinied and the captain and two others were planned to be abandoned on the island also. Crusoe and Friday come to the captains rescue and save the ship for the captain. In return, the captain showed his gratitude by | <urn:uuid:4c2a7cf6-48dc-40f8-914d-56c18367b17b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gemmarketingsolutions.com/daniel-defoe/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00393.warc.gz | en | 0.990724 | 921 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.1296120285987854,
0.36680757999420166,
0.5301309823989868,
-0.010240867733955383,
-0.2547878623008728,
-0.08393196761608124,
-0.008656643331050873,
0.3443172574043274,
-0.0077469199895858765,
-0.27352726459503174,
0.2664721608161926,
-0.04727652668952942,
0.0835772156715393,
0.135255634... | 1 | Daniel Defoe’s acclaimed novel, Robinson Crusoe, is not only a great adventurous novel, but an amazing reflection of Defoe’s moral beliefs, personal experiences, and political battles with the English monarchy. Throughout the course of this novel, references to defoe’s own experiences come up again and again. In addition to these numerous references, the general story line of Robinson Crusoe tells a similar story to that of Defoe’s actual life; slightly reminiscent of the prodigal son theme.
Daniel Defoe used realism to enhance his novel. While many critics agree with this statement, some think that he should have been more accurate with his realism. Critics also found the book to be very enlightening and beneficial to read and they found that it appealed to a very wide variety of people including the rich and poor, and the young and old. Last but not least, some critics found that it showed lack of ability to create characters and events.
Daniel Defoe was born to James and Mary Defoe in St. Gates, London in 1660. His family were all Dissenters, also known as Presbyterians. He had a very good education and his father hoped that he would become a minister, but he chose to become a merchant after he graduated from his schooling. Defoe’s mother died when he was just ten years old, then his father sent him to a boarding school (Moore 1). He was then educated at the Morton Academy,a school fo dissenters(Harvey 215) ,where he was a very good student, and his teacher, the Reverend Me. Norton himself, would later show up as a character in some of Daniel’s fiction.(www.pinkmonkey.com) One year later he married Mary Tuffley, daughter of another dissenter, and also became involved in the Duke of Monmouth‘s rebellion, which was attempting to take the throne from James II. The rebellion ended up a failure and as a result three of Defoes former schoolmates were caught and hanged, but Defoe narrowly escaped the King’s soldiers. (Moor 1)
To the outside world, Defoe seemed to continue to prosper after the Monmouth Rebellion, but by 1692, Daniel had gone bankrupt and ended up owing over 17,000 pounds because of eight separate lawsuits between 1688 and 1692, and though he paid off all but 5,000 pounds within ten years, he was never truly free of debt (Moore 1). Then, writing started to become a larger part of his life. In 1701, he wrote a satyrical poem called The True-Born Englishman which became the best-selling poem ever at that time. (Moore 1) In 1706, he returned to Scotland and started up a newspaper in Edinburgh called the Post-Man (Moore 2), where he earned the title of ‘The Father of Journalism’. However, the following year The Act of Union was made official (Moore 2) and as a result Defoe lost his job. In 1719, the first volume of Robinson Crusoe was published and became and instant hit, especially with the middle and lower class citizens. After his success with Robinson Crusoe, he published Moll Flanders in 1722, using his experiences in Newgate prison to add realism. Daniel used to go to prison cells and even the scaffold to receive manuscripts for these lives of criminals themselves. Finally, he died on April 24, 1731 in Cripplegate of lethargy (Moore 2).
His first successful novel, Robinson Crusoe, was a very huge hit. It was about a man named Robinson who, even against his father’s wishes, became a sailor. On one of his voyages he became shipwrecked on a deserted island and was the sole survivor, much the way defoe saw himself. Then, he realized that he wasn’t the only one on the island, much like the Monmouth rebellion. He found a group of cannibals and rescued one of them who, in turn, became his servant. He named him Friday and taught him the ways of Christianity. Then, twenty-eight years later, there was quite a rustle on a ship near by. The crew of the ship had mutinied and the captain and two others were planned to be abandoned on the island also. Crusoe and Friday come to the captains rescue and save the ship for the captain. In return, the captain showed his gratitude by | 943 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.