Armchair Historians's topics - tribe.net

Knights of the Golden Circle?

2009-10-09T06:34:36Z

Knights of the Golden Circle: They were quite a group before the civil war. They seem to have been one of the big pushers behind secession. Yet I can't find out much about them.
Also a group, promoting racism, with the words 'knights', and 'circle', in there names sounds very familiar. What if any, is the connection between them and the KKK?

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

History 101

2009-10-07T06:53:01Z

Santa Barbara Independent magazine's website has a collection of its History 101 articles, including a new article today about Santa Barbara's last days leading up to becoming a part of the US, and others about the Battle of Santa Barbara, Chumash drawing at Painted Cave, and stagecoach traveling life.

http://www.independent.com/news/community/history-101/

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/sep/12/john-talbot-and-santa-barbara/

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/mar/05/what-was-stagecoach-travel/

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/oct/07/what-can-you-tell-me-about-chumash-drawings-painte/

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/sep/09/who-kellogg-avenue-named-after/

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/aug/28/what-can-you-tell-me-about-gould-family-montecito/

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jul/10/july-4th-just-past-i-was-wondering-how-santa-barba/

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/may/08/question-who-was-mayor-santa-barbara-during-world-/

http://www.independent.com/news/2008/mar/27/what-story-behind-battle-santa-barbara/

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

history on line

2009-08-30T21:25:21Z

Wikipedia is my main source for history on line. While Wikipedia is good it is very limited. Is there are better online source for general history? anyone??

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Nanking

2009-08-07T10:09:06Z

A powerful, emotional and relevant reminder of the heartbreaking toll war takes on the innocent, Nanking tells the story of the Japanese invasion of Nanking, China, in the early days of World War II.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/74369/nanking

posted in Armchair Historians - 7 replies

Turkey world war two

2009-08-04T04:27:56Z

I can find all kinds of things about Turkey during WWI, but nothing in WWII. The war can very close to it. It had been very much apart of the last war and must have been look at by both sides. Does anyone know anything about this?

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Inaugural Addresses

2009-05-30T22:13:13Z

John F. Kennedy
Inaugural Address
Friday, January 20, 1961 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html

Barack Obama
Inaugural Address
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres68.html

Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Abraham Lincoln
Second Inaugural Address
Saturday, March 4, 1865 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

Ronald Reagan
First Inaugural Address
Tuesday, January 20, 1981 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres61.html

Ronald Reagan
Second Inaugural Address
Monday, January 21, 1985 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres62.html

Harry S. Truman
Inaugural Address
Thursday, January 20, 1949 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres53.html

Franklin D. Roosevelt
First Inaugural Address
Saturday, March 4, 1933 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres49.html

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Second Inaugural Address
Wednesday, January 20, 1937 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres50.html

Theodore Roosevelt
Inaugural Address
Saturday, March 4, 1905 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres42.html

Franklin Pierce
Inaugural Address
Friday, March 4, 1853 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres29.html

George Washington
First Inaugural Address
In the City of New York
Thursday, April 30, 1789 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres13.html

George Washington
Second Inaugural Address
In the City of Philadelphia
Monday, March 4, 1793 http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres14.html

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Movies: who here avoids

2009-05-26T01:01:45Z

I have completely refused to watch "The 300" because of the blatant commercial ism
of its writing and trying to warp the near 200 year history into a
cliff notes for action addicts slammed onto cellulous.

Does anyone else here make movie watching a hard choice with any movie that is
history *inspired*?

Randy

posted in Armchair Historians - 17 replies

ancient times

2009-05-04T21:48:00Z

thanks guys, you helped me find what I crave

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Shield

2009-04-28T00:09:57Z

Does anyone know, where and when the first shields were made?

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Best Presidents

2009-04-09T13:28:00Z

Best:
1. Lincoln
2. Washington
3. FDR
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Truman

Worst:
38. Harding
39. Harrison
40. Pierce
41. A. Johnson
42. Buchanan

posted in Armchair Historians - 9 replies

Danton wreck found in deep water

2009-02-19T16:28:15Z

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7898890.stm

Page last updated at 10:33 GMT, Thursday, 19 February 2009

Danton wreck found in deep water
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News

A French battleship sunk in 1917 by a German submarine has been discovered in remarkable condition on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea.

The Danton, with many of its gun turrets still intact, is sitting upright in over 1,000m of water.

It was found by the Fugro geosciences company during a survey for a gas pipeline between Algeria and Italy.

The Danton, which sank with 296 sailors still onboard, lies 35km southwest of the island of Sardinia.

Naval historians record that the Danton's Captain Delage stood on the bridge with his officers and made no attempt to leave the ship as it went down.

The French government is now keen to see that the site is protected.

"Its condition is extraordinary," said Rob Hawkins, project director with Fugro GeoConsulting Limited.

"After it was hit by the torpedoes, the Danton clearly turned turtle and rotated several times. You can see where it dropped some infrastructure on the way down and then impacted on the seabed.

"You can see where it slid along the seabed before coming to a rest," he told BBC News.

A comparison with the original plans for the battleship - in particular, the position of its 240mm guns - confirms the wreck's identity.

The final resting place is a few kilometres from where people have traditionally thought the ship met its end.

"The French Admiralty did argue with us for a while that it should have been several nautical miles away, but we reminded them that modern GPS methods are more accurate than the sextants they used in those days," said Mr Hawkins.

Details of the discovery were released on Thursday at a press conference at the Museum of Science and Technology in Milan.

The pipeline is being built by the Galsi (Gasdotto Algeria Sardegna Italia) consortium and will be the deepest underwater conduit for gas ever constructed when it becomes operational in 2012.

Finding a safe route for it was extremely challenging, said Mr Hawkins.

About 20% of the course lies on the abyssal plain in water depths of about 2,850m. There are also steep descents from the continental shelf.

Fugro deployed its Autonomous Underwater Vehicle to gather bathymetric (depth) and geophysical data.

It also used Remotely Operated Vehicles to make more detailed surveys of particular locations, such as where sediment conditions were uncertain or the route crossed known submarine telecommunications cables.

The discovery of the Danton, named after the French revolutionary Georges Danton, means the 66cm-diameter pipe has to take a slight detour to avoid the war grave.

The ship was less than 10 years old at the time of its loss, but already outclassed by the newer HMS Dreadnought design being introduced by the British.

The 19,000-tonne, 150m-long vessel was carrying over 1,000 men when it was attacked by Germany's U-64 submarine at 1317 on 18 March, 1917. Patrol boats and a destroyer managed to save most of those onboard.

The Danton was travelling between Toulon and Corfu, where it was due to meet up with other vessels in the French fleet. Many of those making the trip were actually crewmembers for the other ships at Corfu.

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

FDR & the Great Depression

2009-02-06T01:36:46Z

We keep hearing from conservative commentators that FDR didn't end the Great Depression, it was WW2 . . . it is true that GDP did not recover to the level of 1929 again until 1941, but FDR was not President in 1929, and if you graph GDP for the years he was President, it looks a lot like a recovery:

Year GDP (Billions)
1933 $56.4
1934 $66.0
1935 $73.3
1936 $83.8
1937 $91.9
1938 $86.1
1939 $92.2
1940 $101.4

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1929&LastYear=1940&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no

This becomes even more clear when you consider economic growth:

Year Growth
1933 -1.3%
1934 10.8%
1935 8.9%
1936 13.0%
1937 5.1%
1938 -3.4%
1939 8.1%
1940 8.8%

http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1930&LastYear=1940&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no

This averages out to an annual growth of 6.25%, a strong recovery by any standard. FDR understandably believed in 1937 that he could afford to raise taxes in order to balance the budget, which accounts for the dip in 1938.

An honest appraisal of the unemploment data paints a similar picture:

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/stop-lying-about-roosevelts-record/

posted in Armchair Historians - 6 replies

Truth in History

2009-02-03T01:44:52Z

This was brought up because as I listened to the Obama Speech (pre-inaugural) as to the
irony that Obama (a black man, son of a race which was formerly enslaved) gave his
speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
first off, I can only discuss this with you guys, secondly, I have no bones to pick with
blacks, nor with Abraham Lincoln, what toasts me is the fawning, love affair that Junior
High schools have with Lincoln and leave out the balance of truth.
Here it is. DID Lincoln actually say these quotes or not, the Speech my housemate and
I watched of Obama brought it up and I was challenged by said housemate that
my sources are lies, and prevarications.

Quote:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

the one I assailed my housemates ears with was
Quote:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois" (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.

Go to google, type in Abraham Lincoln wikiquote, then click on the first hit,
press your "Page down" key four times to find the " whtie supremist " quote of
Lincoln,
just below it you will find:
"I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. " The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois" (August 21, 1858), p. 16.

It would have been a marvel to hear him speak and a dozen times more
wonderful to see the reactions he received of the people.
History tells us what is said, sometimes accurately, sometimes not, but
not how such words are recieved by the common public. We know
(sometimes) of the words of journalists, editors, politicians, "blowhards if you
will" but not how the farmer, the ranch hand and the sheriff saw these things.

ANYWISE, are these legitable quotes or forgeries.

Randy
---------->I

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Napoleon's winner battle

2009-01-13T18:18:06Z

Ok, I remember hearing about a battle Napoleon fought in the middle of a snow storm I Russia? It was early in the invation, and though Napoleon won it some people said it led to his down fall.
Dose anyone know the one I'm talking about??

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 9 replies

Computer

2008-12-29T04:28:49Z

I read, then reflected and realized that I was tearing, crying a bit, hairs standing on my
skin.
I guess this news really got to me. Serious!
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/12/2000-year-old-a.html?npu=1&mbid=yhp

Greek computer reassembled, I remember reading about this two decades ago, and wondered if it would ever be deciphered.

Randy
geez, I am a softy,

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

Worst Presidential Blunders

2008-12-25T16:16:04Z

From engaging in sexual relations with an intern to letting the Vietnam War escalate, U.S. presidents have been blamed for some egregious errors.

So who had the worst blunder? President James Buchanan, for failing to avert the Civil War, according to a survey of presidential historians organized by the University of Louisville's McConnell Center.

The survey's top 10 presidential blunders were announced Saturday during a President's Day weekend conference called "Presidential Moments."

"We can probably learn just as much - or maybe even more - by looking at the mistakes rather than looking at why they were great," said political scientist and McConnell Center Director Gary Gregg.

Scholars who participated said Buchanan didn't do enough to oppose efforts by Southern states to secede from the Union before the Civil War.

The second worst mistake, the survey found, was Andrew Johnson's decision just after the Civil War to side with Southern whites and oppose improvements in justice for Southern blacks beyond abolishing slavery.

"We continue to pay" for Johnson's errors, wrote Michael Les Benedict, an Ohio State University history professor emeritus.

Lyndon Johnson earned the No. 3 spot by allowing the Vietnam War to intensify, Gregg said.

Where does Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky scandal rank? Many scholars said it belonged at No. 10, saying that it probably affected Clinton's presidency more than it did American history and the public.

The rest of the top 10 blunders:

-4: Woodrow Wilson's refusal to compromise on the Treaty of Versailles after World War I.

-5: Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate cover-up.

-6: James Madison's failure to keep the United States out of the War of 1812 with Britain.

-7: Thomas Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, a self-imposed prohibition on trade with Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.

-8: John F. Kennedy allowing the Bay of Pigs Invasion that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

-9: Ronald Reagan and the Iran-Contra Affair, the effort to sell arms to Iran and use the money to finance an armed anti-communist group in Nicaragua.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1151AP_Presidential_Errors.html

posted in Armchair Historians - 41 replies

Stalin makes a comeback with Russian teachers

2008-12-22T17:17:13Z

Stalin makes a comeback with Russian teachers

By Svetlana Osadchuk Moscow Times : Aug 31, 2008

MOSCOW: Last year, a Russian teachers' manual described Josef Stalin as an "effective manager." Now, a new teachers' manual says the Soviet dictator acted rationally in conducting a campaign of terror to ensure the country's modernization. The new manual, "A History of Russia, 1900-1945," is part of a series of educational material that the authors say will help promote patriotism in young people. Critics have taken exception to excerpts that they say are attempts to whitewash Stalin's crimes. A textbook to accompany the teachers' manual has not yet been finalized, so it will not be in the classroom when the school year begins Monday. The textbook is expected to be completed in March and there is no guarantee that the assessment of Stalin will remain.

Hundreds of thousands of people were executed and millions imprisoned under Stalin. The manual says the Great Terror of the 1930s came about because "Stalin did not know who would deal the next blow, and for that reason he attacked every known group and movement, as well as those who were not his allies or of his mindset." The manual, which the authors have posted on the Internet, stresses to teachers that "it is important to show that Stalin acted in a concrete historical situation" and that he acted "entirely rationally - as the guardian of a system, as a consistent supporter of reshaping the country into an industrialized state."

Although a teachers' manual last year described Stalin as an "effective manager," this judgment was removed from the final version of the textbook, "A Modern History of Russia, 1945-2006," said Larisa Alexeyeva, a senior editor with the Prosveshcheniye publishing house, which is printing the textbooks. The editor of the new book, Alexander Danilov, defended characterizing Stalin's actions as rational. "We are not defending Stalin," Danilov said. "We are just exploring his personality, explaining his motives and showing what he really achieved."

Roy Medvedev, a prominent Russian historian, said that such an approach "only formally appears to be objective. It is, in fact, falsification. Stalin by no means acted rationally all of the time and many of his actions damaged the country." Before World War II, he continued, "many in the military ranks were arrested - like my father, for example - and their children, little boys, were sent to the front."

According to an editor of the manual, Anatoly Utkin - who is director of the Center for International Research at the Institute of U.S.A. and Canada Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences - Stalin made several ingenious decisions during World War II, including moving Soviet war factories east, out of the reach of invading Nazi forces. "I have no personal affection for him, but I am a historian and I work with facts," Utkin said. Students should learn about all aspects of Stalin's personality, such as the fact that he had 10,000 books in his library that he had personally marked up, Utkin said. "Can you tell me of any other leader, an American president, for example, who read 10,000 books?" he asked.

Alexander Kondakov, head of Prosveshcheniye, said modern educational standards "demand the whole of society have its say about the most painful pages of our history," adding that the authors were bold people for putting forth such controversial theses. Alexander Kamensky, head of the history department at the Russia State University for the Humanities, said the manual was, "sadly, a sign that teaching history in schools had become "an ideological instrument."

Meeting with a group of history teachers in June 2007, Vladimir Putin, then president and now the prime minister, said that while Stalin's purges had been one of the darkest periods of the country's history, "others cannot be allowed to impose a feeling of guilt on us." While he did not directly name the United States, Putin made an obvious reference to the U.S. bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and cited the Vietnam War in defending Russia's past.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/31/europe/stalin.php

I'm constantly amazed how the 'history' of an event changes as years pass, leaders change, the general public concepts of political correctness evolve [or devolve]... here we see Russia dusting off and cleaning up the image of a man that caused so much pain to so many Russians, all in the name of patriotic pride...of course, Russia isn't alone in this housecleaning, and as more information is focused on the ephemeral Internet, we can see history morph right before our eyes.

how do you feel about this? have you any ideas of how we can preserve the past observations ? should we even be concerned, or am i only over-reacting ? i appreciate your viewpoint, i might just be to myopically bull-headed about this !

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

20 Amazing Color Images of the First World War

2008-12-15T18:23:41Z

http://listverse.com/history/20-amazing-color-images-of-the-first-world-war

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

Classical Masters

2008-12-03T17:27:29Z

http://www.youtube.com/user/theoshow2

"Channel attempts to provide historic recordings or especially noteworthy performances that display an elevated level of musicianship.

Comments & suggestions regarding the posted videos or upon performances overlooked that warrant consideration are welcomed."

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

, Xian question, thank you for your help

2008-08-09T19:11:28Z

I was raise xian, debate xians, pagans etc, but for the LONGEST time
I have wanted to write way christianity has spead the way
it did. Just don't have the writers fortei to do it the way I want and get all the info in there.

Can anyone tell me how to find a article on how Christianity spread
wtihout reference or specuation about it being the
truth or any that stuff. JUST focus on a message that was written,
the dispershion of the followers over a wide area, the
pervious arrival of Roman rule, coins (MONEY) , a univeral language
"Latin, Greek", the Roman ROAD system,
Without this presence of these I feel that a new religion would not
have prospered to a "Great world religion", but
I just don't want to do the effort of writing my thoughts down and I
am sure that someone else has done it from
a historical perspective.

Thank you so much for your help. :)
Randy

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Antiques

2008-06-24T08:26:06Z

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Antiques-and-Swords-For-Sale

Bloke's thread got me searching for who possibly could that old fart be? As often happens on the net, I ended up surfing elsewhere, this time at an eBay shop, selling antiques... some nice antique swords here. I can't afford any of the items listed, but it was still nice to browse. Enjoy.

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Anyone know who this is ???

2008-06-24T08:11:04Z

http://tribes.tribe.net/triviarocks/photos/61c5eb3a-674f-4491-b64a-bd827463d93e

posted in Armchair Historians - 10 replies

Wreck of German raider Kormoran found

2008-05-28T17:41:01Z

Wreck of German raider Kormoran found
Sunday Mar 16 12:16 AEDT
The wreck of the German merchant raider Kormoran, believed responsible for the war-time sinking of HMAS Sydney in November 1941, has been found off the Western Australian coast.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, along with Australian Defence Force heads, announced the discovery at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra on Sunday.

He said the search body called Finding Sydney made the discovery on Saturday, about 150km west of Shark Bay.

"We are one step closer as a nation to hopefully finding Sydney," Mr Rudd said.

"This is an important part in solving a 65-year-old puzzle."

Australia's greatest maritime mystery claimed the lives of the Sydney's 645 crew.

Sailing from Sumatra back to Fremantle in November 1941, the warship encountered what purported to be the Dutch freighter Straat Malakka off the West Australian coast.

But the freighter was really the disguised German mercantile raider Kormoran.

After an ensuing fight, the Sydney went down with all hands and represents the greatest ever loss of life in an Australian warship.

It was also the largest vessel of any country to be lost with no survivors during the Second World War.

The 317 survivors from the 397 crew aboard Kormoran were picked up over ensuing days, giving the only eyewitness accounts of what occurred.

Source http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=392419

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

vincent of lerins

2008-05-14T19:52:47Z

Fifth century French monk / priest best-known for describing the Catholic faith as what has been believed "everywhere, at all times, and by all." (quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est)

I'm interested in how his fortunes have changed throughout history. The Middle Ages largely ignored him; several Reformers cited him; he was cited by the bishops of the First Vatican Council but deliberately *not* cited by those of the Second, and has since become a frequent reference for Catholics who disapprove of Vatican II and especially the Novus Ordo Mass that came of it.

Anyone else interested in this guy, or with changing views of development / progress in Church history?

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Ancient Primary Sources and E-texts

2008-05-10T15:29:31Z

Enjoy :)

http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_primary_texts.htm

posted in Armchair Historians - 7 replies

On the Reformation(s)

2008-04-30T19:00:14Z

I'm now reading Alister McGrath's "Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution--a history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first."

Last year I read a short intro to the Reformation by Collingsworth and a dual biography of Leo X and Martin Luther.

I've read several histories of Christianity (Chadwick, Johnson, The Oxford Illustrated) but now want a deeper insight into the causes and consequences of the Reformation(s). I have no confessional ax to grind.

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Little Known Facts of Former American Presidents

2008-04-30T15:42:15Z

http://www.althafahmed.com/part-4-the-men-in-charge/

If you were asked to tell something about your all time favorite American president, which one would you pick, and what would you say about him?

Think carefully, and then open up your mind to accept a few facts you may not have known.

George Washington was not actually the first President of the United States. The real first President was Maryland’s representative at the Continental Congress, and his unknown name was John Hanson. On November 5, 1781, Hanson, who was considered a black man because of his Moorish heritage, was elected by the Constitutional Congress to the office of “President of the United States in Congress Assembled”. He served for one year and was followed by 6 other Presidents before Washington was elected.

President Thomas Jefferson had a long time common law marriage with one of his slaves, a teenager named Sally Hemings. They had 5 children together. Jefferson also was an apparent alcoholic. During his 2 terms, he spent close to $11,000 just on wine, which was a huge amount in those days.

President Grover Cleveland was a draft dodger. He paid someone to join the service in his place. He was scorned for this by his political opponent, James Blaine until it was made public that Blaine had done the very same thing.

Warren Harding was addicted to gambling, he once lost an entire set of White House China.

Franklin Roosevelt was related to his own wife. Eleanor was his second cousin. This First Couples marriage was not a happy one, President Roosevelt was a closet cross dresser, and for 30 years, Eleanor Roosevelt was having an affair with another woman, Associated Press reporter Lenora Hickok.

John Tyler, who was President from 1841 to 1845, joined the Confederacy twenty years later and became the only President named a sworn enemy of the United States.

President Andrew Jackson believed the world was flat and for all of his life, he refused to accept the proven fact that the world was round. Jackson once severely beat a man with his walking cane, because the man disagreed with him. (About something else)

Woodrow Wilson was a racist, and an outspoken white supremacist.

James Monroe was a college dropout, had a serious dedication to drinking, and was completely controlled by his wife and daughters. They were so selfish and spent money so freely that Monroe was practically bankrupt by the end of his second term.

These are only a few of the presidents, and only a few of their faults. However, your children won’t learn these facts in history class. Even though they are things, we should all know.

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

The good and bad of it.

2008-03-28T17:47:00Z

THE YEAR 1907

This will boggle your mind, I know it did mine!
The year is 1907.
One hundred years ago.
What a difference a century makes!
Here are some of the U.S. Statistics for the Year 1907:
************************************

The average life expectancy in the U.S. Was 47 years old.

Only 14 percent of the homes in the U.S. Had a bathtub.

Only 8 percent of the homes had a telephone.

A three-minute call from Denver to New York City
Cost eleven dollars.

There were only 8,000 cars in the U.S. , and only 144 miles of paved roads.

The maximum speed limit in most cities was 10 mph.

Alabama, Mississippi, Iowa, and Tennessee were each more
Heavily populated than California

With a mere 1.4 million people, California was only the 21st
Most populous state in the Union

The tallest structure in the world was the Eiffel Tower !

The average wage in the U.S. Was 22 Cents per hour.

The average U.S. Worker made between $200 and $400 per year.

A competent accountant could expect to earn $2000 per year,
A dentist made $2,500 per year,
A veterinarian $1,500 per year,
And a mechanical engineer about $5,000 per year.

More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. Took place at HOME.

Ninety percent of all U.S. Doctors had NO COLLEGE EDUCATION!
Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which
Were condemned in the press AND the government as "substandard."

Sugar cost four cents a pound.

Eggs were fourteen cents a dozen.

Coffee was fifteen cents a pound.

Most women only washed their hair once a month, and used
Borax or egg yolks for shampoo.

Canada passed a law that prohibited poor people from
Entering into their country for any reason.

Five leading causes of death in the U.S. Were:
1. Pneumonia and influenza
2. Tuberculosis
3. Diarrhea
4. Heart disease
5. Stroke

The American flag had 45 stars.
Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Hawaii, and
Alaska hadn't been admitted to the Union yet.

The population of Las Vegas , Nevada , was only 30!!!!

Crossword puzzles, canned beer, and ice tea
Hadn't been invented yet.

There was no Mother's Day or Father's Day.

Two out of every 10 U.S. Adults couldn't read or write.

Only 6 percent of all Americans had graduated from high school.

Marijuana, heroin, and morphine were all available over
The counter at the local corner drugstores. Back then pharmacists
Said, "Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind,
Regulates the stomach and bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian
Of health."

There were about 230 reported Murders in the ENTIRE U.S.A.!

Now I sent it to you and others all over the United States ,
Possibly the world, in a matter of just Seconds !!!!!!!!!

PASS THIS ALONG!!!!!

Just Try to imagine.....
What it may be like
In another 100 years !!!!!!!

IT STAGGERS THE MIND!

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

"Zwartboek" und "Der Untergang"

2008-02-05T15:19:00Z

"Zwartboek" (Black Book) und "Der Untergang" (Downfall)

I am going to watch these two films this weekend. Are they historically accurate or spiked with fantasy?

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

Why Mayan civilization isn't worthy of the name

2008-01-19T21:23:48Z

http://www.culturecult.com/art_notes.htm

"I suppose it all depends on what you expect a civilization to offer. The Maya, and the Aztecs too, offered barbarism plus pyramids. "

"The ripples of Greek civilization spread globally, and deserved to. There were no ripples from the Maya. No enlightenment. Nothing. Just art and masonry and the dried blood of long-dead sacrificial victims. That is not nearly enough."

Pericles:
" Our political system does not compete with institutions which are elsewhere in force. We do not copy our neighbours, but try to be an example. Our administration favors the many instead of the few: that is why it is called democracy.

The laws afford equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, but we do not ignore the claims of excellence. When a citizen distinguishes himself, then he will be called to serve the state, in preference to others, not as a matter of privilege but as a reward of merit; and poverty is no bar…

The freedom we enjoy extends also to ordinary life; we are not suspicious of one another, and do not nag our neighbour if he chooses to go his own way. But this freedom does not make us lawless. We are taught to respect the magistrates and the laws, and never to forget that we must protect the injured. And we are also taught to observe those unwritten laws whose sanction lies only in the universal feeling of what is right.

Our city is thrown open to the world; we never expel a foreigner. We are free to live exactly as we please, and yet we are always ready to face danger. We love beauty without indulging in fancies, and although we try to improve our intellect, this does not weaken our will.

To admit one’s poverty is no disgrace with us; but we consider it disgraceful not to make an effort to avoid it. An Athenian citizen does not neglect public affairs when attending to his private business… We consider a man who takes no interest in the state not as harmless, but as useless; and although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it.

We do not look upon discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of political action, but as an indispensable preliminary to acting wisely. We believe that happiness is the fruit of freedom and freedom that of valor, and we do not shrink from the dangers of war.

To sum up, I claim that Athens is the School of Hellas, and that the individual Athenian grows up to develop a happy versatility, a readiness for emergencies, and self-reliance. "

posted in Armchair Historians - 158 replies

WW 1 Blogger

2008-01-09T21:48:36Z

This got posted in the Trivia Tribe
http://wwar1.blogspot.com/

"WW1: Experiences of an English Soldier

The blog is made up of transcripts of Harry Lamin's letters from the first World War. The letters will be posted exactly 90 years after they were written. "

( The Trivia Tribe thread is here http://tribes.tribe.net/triviarocks/thread/8dd12ead-ad0f-42be-8075-910613271161#21f729a3-5760-40e6-a780-90b946ff183b )

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Thoughts on HBO series "Rome"

2007-12-31T20:11:56Z

Just got done renting the whole first episode of Rome. It amazes me that the producers went into such detail to try to get props and settings as close to the real thing as possible by hiring a historian, who would check references etc...
check:
www.hbo.com/Rome

However much of the story seems to be highly stylized with extreme happenings, such as incest, lesbianism, murder, and plenty of S**. I understand some of these things were common place, but still we can't attribute the characters for having done such things.
Such as Cleopatra being impregnated by a common Roman Soldier.
Overall I thought it was excellent and a highly sophisticated version--very impressive.
Anyone else?

posted in Armchair Historians - 32 replies

The Catalpa Rescue - A Nineteenth Century Great Escape.

2007-11-28T16:30:20Z

(this post comes from the Trivia Tribe at http://tribes.tribe.net/triviarocks/threads which some of you might like...)

The Catalpa Rescue is the stuff of ambitious heroism and legend. A celebrated story in its day, a hundred and fifty years after the event, it has been largely forgotten. Never heard of the Catalpa rescue? You're not alone. Even in Western Australia where it happened, it has largely been overlooked..

To sum up the story of the rescue – it was a “can-do” and “go-getter” prison break, an olden-day global conspiracy with undercover agents and code books that took place with international coordination and effort from the US, Britain, Ireland and Australia.

The daring escape plan involved sending a whaling ship from New Bedford, Massachusetts, half way across the globe to bring convicts in Western Australia to freedom in New York over a distance of 18,708 kilometers (11,624 miles or 10,101 nautical miles as the crow flies and that’s the return trip only ! Captain Anthony navigated most of this distance without the use of a functioning chronometer which is considered a great feat of seamanship.)

The plan was the work of three meticulous minds – John Devoy, the cunning Irish spy, John Breslin, and whaling captain George Anthony. Together they devised an elaborate scheme to liberate imprisoned Irish Nationalists from Fremantle, one of the most hostile and remote prisons on earth.

Our story begins in Ireland in 1865 when the British started arresting Irish soldiers who had secretly joined the Fenian movement in the guise of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, which was a secret society that flourished in the 1860s. Its activities included (unsuccessful) armed rebellion against British Occupation of Ireland. (The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) and “Young Ireland” were some of the progenitors to the IRA and Sinn Féin) .

Convicted of treason and/or sedition, many Irish Political Prisoners were transported to penal colonies through the British Empire including Australia. Some of these people committed “crimes” such as calling for Irish Independence and Freedom through the Press and speeches. ..

In 1868 more than 60 Fenians were transported to Fremantle as political prisoners on the “Hougoumont”, the last convict ship sent to Western Australia. Their arrival signalled the end of convict transportation to Australia.

The civilian Fenains were treated as political prisoners, whilst the military element were treated as ordinary criminals. In 1869 the civilians were granted clemency and freed while the military element were left languishing in prison, many without the hope of release for many years.

Those on board the Hougoumont in 1868 included John Boyle O'Reilly who has been an NCO in the 10th Hussars (the prestigious regiment of the Prince of Wales) when arrested in 1866 for assisting fellow soldiers to join the rebellious Fenians. Found guilty at his court martial, his death sentence was commuted to 20 year's penal servitude which automatically meant transportation (anyone sentenced to seven years or more was transported). As one of the convicted who served in the British Army – he watched as his civilian counterparts were freed in 1869. He escaped in the same year on an American whaler to the USA where he joined other Fenians to plot the rescue of the last of their 'military' colleagues still imprisoned in Fremantle. Six would later be rescued by an American whaling ship, the Catalpa, on Easter Monday, 1876.

Several years after first arriving in Fremantle , one of the prisoners got a smuggled message to their former Fenian commander, John Devoy. This desperate letter urged the exiled freedom fighter to mount a rescue bid and release them from hell. The letters potency provoked an extraordinary reaction from the Irish American community who donated money to liberate these political prisoners of the British Empire.

In the dramatic story that unfolded, the Fenians in America bought a cargo ship, the Catalpa, in New Bedford Massachusetts, and refitted the vessel as a whaler registered to a whaling company. In April 1875 Catalpa set sail, initially for the Atlantic whaling grounds, but with a secret mission to fulfil.

The escape took two years to accomplish and required the financial assistance of over 7,000 Irish Americans and depended upon the ingenuity of three pivotal characters to pull off one of the greatest propaganda coups in Fenian history. These were the Fenian leader and New York newspaperman John Devoy, the convicts former Fenian commander who masterminded of the rescue plot. Irish patriot and secret agent, John Breslin, who was sent to Fremantle to supervise the rescue by masquerading as American millionaire. Breslin even managed to find time to have a romantic affair in Fremantle. God bless the Irish LOL..

The most unlikely of the three was the American captain of the Catalpa, George Anthony, a ramrod-straight Presbyterian Yankee who seemed to have little in common with the passionate and raucous Fenians.

On the day of the escape, Breslin's carefully planned prison break seemed perfect. The Catalpa lay close to international waters and a small whale boat with its crew was waiting onshore to whisk the men to freedom.

Eight Fenian prisoners who were supposed to be in work parties outside the Prison and escape, unfortunately, two missed out because they were confined for insubordination. Complicit in organising the escape was prison chaplain and several other locals..

Following confirmation of Catalpa's arrival off Garden Island WA, six of the remaining Fenians made their getaway from work parties outside Fremantle Prison using two horse drawn buggies. At Rockingham they boarded Catalpa's longboat..

What should have been a discreet 4 hour row to the waiting ship and freedom, turned into 48 hours of harrowing drama in which the rescue party were challenged time and time again.

The mobility of the Catalpa, designed to maximise its chances of avoiding apprehension, made it difficult for the whaleboat to rendezvous with it easily as she cruised about to avoid suspicion while awaiting the longboat.

The longboat sighted the mother ship in the distance at 5.30pm, but by 7pm a squall caused them to lose contact in the gathering darkness. This meant that the crew and passengers of the open boat were forced to spend an unwelcome, uncomfortable and unscheduled night at sea.

Meanwhile, the Western Australian authorities had found out where they had disembarked and set off on a hair-raising chase to apprehend the prisoners before they boarded the ship. Indeed the Catapla was challenged while the convicts struggled towards her in the longboat. Through storm and in front of their pursuers, the fugitive Fenians in the longboat finally made it to the ship on the day after leaving shore..

What followed was a standoff between an unarmed whaling ship and a British ship which had loaded onboard a full compliment of armed police and artillery..

The coastal steamer Georgette, one of at least two ships in pursuit, made contact with the Catalpa at 8 am Wednesday 19th April, firing shots across its stern and bow. The Catalpa hove to, but Captain Anthony, claimed they were in international waters under the American flag, and challenged the steamer to create a diplomatic incident if it dared (Britain had just lost a 3 million pound case involving a similar situation with an American ship)..

The master of the steamer, uncertain if Catalpa was in international waters or not, felt he had no choice, and reluctantly let the ship sail away. Triumphantly carrying the Fenian escapees, Catalpa arrived in New York in August 1876.

The odds were stacked against the plotters. It's difficult to believe they got away with it given the byzantine nature of British intelligence. Plenty of Fenians had been betrayed in the past by a loose word in the pub. But, amazingly, despite many near-misses, the rescuers pulled it off.

News of the escape flashed around the world. The British Empire had been humbled and humiliated by Irish pluck and American doggedness. Britain considered American involvement as a near act of war after the Catalpa had outran the Royal Navy and deposited its politically dangerous cargo in New York Harbor in August 1876

The Catalpa escape created a massive international sensation in its day. Its articulate heroes were celebrated as models of Irish wit and ingenuity and their story was handed down to the generations that followed them.

In Dublin and New York, the rescued six were seen as freedom fighters; in London and Perth they were officially portrayed as traitors and felons.

As the plots mastermind Devoy predicted, the prison break bolstered Irish morale and spurred the fight for independence onwards. This was finally won in 1922. Devoy lived long enough to realize that lifelong ambition and, half a century after being exiled, returned to the country he had fought so hard to free.

The Catalpa became a symbol of defiance against Great Britain and would loom large in the revolutionary rhetoric of Michael Collins and was the subject of many a fireside tale. .

Some More Catalpa Trivia
“The Ballad of the Catalpa” so annoyed the police that it was officially banned in Western Australia. Given that this law has not been rescinded, in theory one could be arrested for singing it in public even today!

During the escape, 16 men, stores and weapons were crammed into the whaleboat for the trip out to the Catalpa waiting offshore.

Spies were sent from America to Fremantle, Western Australia to coordinate the Catalpa escape. A code was developed and only two copies were made, one held by Captain Anthony and the other by the spy John Breslin.

The Catalpa was registered to John T. Richardson's whaling company After this episode the Catalpa continued its career as a whaler. Richardson finally sold it in 1884.

Captain Anthony would never again sail into international waters for fear of arrest by the British government

Sources
http://www.fremantleprison.com/history/history32.cfm
http://www.irishaustralia.com/Australian/Patriots/catalpa.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_irish/index.html
http://www.anmm.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=378&c=1783
http://www.rte.ie/tv/hiddenhistory/catalparescue.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22641666-5003422,00.html
http://www.anmm.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=403&c=2108
http://www.theage.com.au/news/tv--radio/irish-luck-looms-large-over-jail-break/2007/10/24/1192941129055.html
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/deepend/stories/2006/1753667.htm
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A050426b.htm

Distance tools:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distanceresult.html?p1=196&p2=179
http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/calculate-distance.html

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Pre-Columbian Horse

2007-11-24T00:39:13Z

I was curious if there were any horses in the Americas before Columbus and the Vinland expedition.

http://ancientlosttreasures.yuku.com/topic/4601?f=1

I found this and I am sure there is more, but what of horses that crossed the Bering strait? Any ideas there people?

Randy
..........,

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

WHAT NEW HISTORY BOOKS DO YOU RECOMMEND?

2007-11-13T23:50:00Z

Joseph Ellis, David McCullough, Doris Kearns-Goodwin, .....

Any outstanding New History books written lately that you would highly recommend?

I highly recommend " Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present" By Michael B. Oren.

And PLEASE.....no overtly political books......

posted in Armchair Historians - 10 replies

"The War"

2007-10-03T05:29:58Z

Though historically accurate, this series lacks the narrative quality of "The Civil War": For one thing, I miss the music and also the narration (of David McCullough) which helped the earlier series keep the quality and consistency which held it together through nine episodes. Neither the music nor narration in "The War" is memorable, though surely better alternatives were available.

Another problem is with the material itself. In "The Civil War," Burns quoted freely from Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglas, Walt Whitman and others, people who were great speakers and writers. But now, the material comes mainly from ordinary people, which gives it a movingly personal quality, though lacking in the wit and eloquence which so embellished "The Civil War."

I also miss the occasional narrators, people like Garrison Keillor, Morgan Freeman, Sam Waterston and Studs Terkel, who took turns speaking for war participants long dead, and the commentary by historians like Shelby Foote and Ed Bearss. Here, the story is largely confined to what the individuals knew about it, and told in their voices, a historiography of details and incidents. It is the historian's job to generalize, and Burns refuses to do so.

posted in Armchair Historians - 15 replies

Presidents of the past

2007-09-26T03:10:03Z

The worst president ?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

Then an article :

What Will History Say?
He's The Worst Ever

By Eric Foner
Sunday, December 3, 2006; Page B01

Ever since 1948, when Harvard professor Arthur Schlesinger Sr. asked 55 historians to rank U.S. presidents on a scale from "great" to "failure," such polls have been a favorite pastime for those of us who study the American past.

Changes in presidential rankings reflect shifts in how we view history. When the first poll was taken, the Reconstruction era that followed the Civil War was regarded as a time of corruption and misgovernment caused by granting black men the right to vote. As a result, President Andrew Johnson, a fervent white supremacist who opposed efforts to extend basic rights to former slaves, was rated "near great." Today, by contrast, scholars consider Reconstruction a flawed but noble attempt to build an interracial democracy from the ashes of slavery -- and Johnson a flat failure.

More often, however, the rankings display a remarkable year-to-year uniformity. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt always figure in the "great" category. Most presidents are ranked "average" or, to put it less charitably, mediocre. Johnson, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Richard M. Nixon occupy the bottom rung, and now President Bush is a leading contender to join them. A look at history, as well as Bush's policies, explains why.

At a time of national crisis, Pierce and Buchanan, who served in the eight years preceding the Civil War, and Johnson, who followed it, were simply not up to the job. Stubborn, narrow-minded, unwilling to listen to criticism or to consider alternatives to disastrous mistakes, they surrounded themselves with sycophants and shaped their policies to appeal to retrogressive political forces (in that era, pro-slavery and racist ideologues). Even after being repudiated in the midterm elections of 1854, 1858 and 1866, respectively, they ignored major currents of public opinion and clung to flawed policies. Bush's presidency certainly brings theirs to mind.

Harding and Coolidge are best remembered for the corruption of their years in office (1921-23 and 1923-29, respectively) and for channeling money and favors to big business. They slashed income and corporate taxes and supported employers' campaigns to eliminate unions. Members of their administrations received kickbacks and bribes from lobbyists and businessmen. "Never before, here or anywhere else," declared the Wall Street Journal, "has a government been so completely fused with business." The Journal could hardly have anticipated the even worse cronyism, corruption and pro-business bias of the Bush administration.

Despite some notable accomplishments in domestic and foreign policy, Nixon is mostly associated today with disdain for the Constitution and abuse of presidential power. Obsessed with secrecy and media leaks, he viewed every critic as a threat to national security and illegally spied on U.S. citizens. Nixon considered himself above the law.

Bush has taken this disdain for law even further. He has sought to strip people accused of crimes of rights that date as far back as the Magna Carta in Anglo-American jurisprudence: trial by impartial jury, access to lawyers and knowledge of evidence against them. In dozens of statements when signing legislation, he has asserted the right to ignore the parts of laws with which he disagrees. His administration has adopted policies regarding the treatment of prisoners of war that have disgraced the nation and alienated virtually the entire world. Usually, during wartime, the Supreme Court has refrained from passing judgment on presidential actions related to national defense. The court's unprecedented rebukes of Bush's policies on detainees indicate how far the administration has strayed from the rule of law.

One other president bears comparison to Bush: James K. Polk. Some historians admire him, in part because he made their job easier by keeping a detailed diary during his administration, which spanned the years of the Mexican-American War. But Polk should be remembered primarily for launching that unprovoked attack on Mexico and seizing one-third of its territory for the United States.

Lincoln, then a member of Congress from Illinois, condemned Polk for misleading Congress and the public about the cause of the war -- an alleged Mexican incursion into the United States. Accepting the president's right to attack another country "whenever he shall deem it necessary," Lincoln observed, would make it impossible to "fix any limit" to his power to make war. Today, one wishes that the country had heeded Lincoln's warning.

Historians are loath to predict the future. It is impossible to say with certainty how Bush will be ranked in, say, 2050. But somehow, in his first six years in office he has managed to combine the lapses of leadership, misguided policies and abuse of power of his failed predecessors. I think there is no alternative but to rank him as the worst president in U.S. history.

efoner@aol.com

Eric Foner is DeWitt Clinton professor

of history at Columbia University.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Charity of Randy W.
***********************

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

OLIVER CROMWELL ----Monster responsible for the Irish / English divide?

2007-09-25T03:29:46Z

Let's hear the Armchair Historians hash this one out. This man truly had a tremensdous impact on World history.

He is the man responsible for creating the legendary " RED COATS " ...the first true British Standing Army...

He was Lord Protector of the British Empire, responsible for the creation of the English Commonwealth.... after declaring that monarchies were corrupt and having King Charles I beheaded.

He was also a puritan, in search of religious liberty ....yet he was murderously intolrant of Catholics...murdering men, women and children in the name of God during his siege at Drogheda.

Is he a monster?...A Military Genius....?...Man of faith on a mission defending his country or an overzealous religious monster?

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

Partition

2007-09-25T01:11:26Z

Next week marks the 60th anniversary of the partition of India. Two new books on the subject—Yasmin Khan's The Great Partition and Alex von Tunzelmann's Indian Summer—are reviewed in recent issues of the Economist and The New Yorker, respectively. And though neither review mentions today's Iraq, (except, at most, in passing), the parallels are ominous and inescapable.

Anyone who believes that U.S. troops can simply and suddenly leave Iraq without risk of unleashing great horror—or who regards religious or ethnic partition as a solution instead of a desperate ploy—should look back at the summer of 1947, when the British Empire packed up and India fulfilled its "tryst with destiny" (as Jawaharlal Nehru described its awakening to independence), only to plunge into a monstrous spree of ethnic cleansing (12 million people uprooted, as many as 1 million murdered) that continues to take its toll today.

As India's independence and Britain's withdrawal seemed inevitable in the wake of World War II, the country's long-suppressed internal fissures began to rumble like a reawakened volcano. Gandhi's followers in the Congress Party campaigned as a secular movement. But Muslims saw it as a cover for Hindu domination, and Gandhi's rival, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, though a secular Muslim, played the religion card to the hilt to attract fundamentalists' favor.

On Aug. 15, when the British pulled out, millions of Hindus on Muslim land and Muslims on Hindu land—and lots of Sikhs on either—were brutalized, raped, or killed. Many packed their belongings and moved, but, unprotected, they were slaughtered along the way. The Indian Army, which had been created by Britain, also divided along religious lines, and, as the New Yorker review notes, "many of the communalized soldiers would join their coreligionists in killing sprees, giving the violence of partition its genocidal cast."

http://www.slate.com/id/2172001/

A much less violent "population exchange" took place between Greece and Turkey after WW1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Hundred Years War

2007-09-10T19:02:10Z

Can anyone recommend a good source on this?

posted in Armchair Historians - 4 replies

Rome 2 is out!!!

2007-08-24T08:03:44Z

So I saw Rome Series 2 is out now at blockbuster.....currently working my way through in a hurry.
I am sorry but Atia is way too demonized. there's no way a woman could get ahold of another aristocrat and do such horrible things without being penalized...just my thoughts...any others?

posted in Armchair Historians - 4 replies

Iraq v. Vietnam

2007-08-23T20:16:30Z

The American withdrawal from Vietnam is widely remembered as an ignominious end to a misguided war — but one with few negative repercussions for the United States and its allies.

By the time these Americans were lifted off a roof in Saigon in 1975 , few American combat forces were left in Vietnam.
Now, in urging Americans to stay the course in Iraq, President Bush is challenging that historical memory.

In reminding Americans that the pullout in 1975 was followed by years of bloody upheaval in Southeast Asia, Mr. Bush argued in a speech on Wednesday that Vietnam’s lessons provide a reason for persevering in Iraq, rather than for leaving any time soon. Mr. Bush in essence accused his war critics of amnesia over the exodus of Vietnamese “boat people” refugees and the mass killings in Cambodia that upended the lives of millions of people.

President Bush is right on the factual record, according to historians. But many of them also quarreled with his drawing analogies from the causes of that turmoil to predict what might happen in Iraq should the United States withdraw.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/washington/23history.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=94cb59430f3958f2&ex=1188014400&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1187892540-g23EnX61uugge+1w7mQDXw

One problem with the Vietnam analogy is that in Vietnam we were fighting an organized enemy that could conceivably have been defeated by military means. In Iraq, we find our selves in chaos of a civil war between many conflicting forces, most of them native to the country itself, so a purely military victory is impossible, as Gen. Petraeus himself has said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/08/iraq.petraeus/index.html

This has not prevented many on the right from claiming that a military victory is imminent:

While the U.S. pursues stability and democracy, our enemies are merrily capitalizing on mayhem to carve out spheres of influence and bleed us dry. The only thing that could conceivably alter their calculations is a change in the balance of power on the ground. That is what Army Gen. David Petraeus is trying to achieve. But he is being undermined by incessant withdrawal demands from home, which are convincing our enemies that they can wait us out. Only if the other side faces the probability of defeat — or at least stalemate — can negotiations produce a durable accord.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13854/iraq_isnt_vietnam_henry.html

However, Americans have already heard this too often before. Ever since Bush's notorious "Mission Accomplished" speech, we have heard glowing reports of progress in Iraq, most of which eventually proved illusory. George Will: ". . . remember the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, Iraqi voters' purple fingers, the Iraqi constitution, the killing of Saddam Hussein's sons, the capture of Hussein, the killing of Zarqawi, etc."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/22/AR2007082202402.html

Victory is always around the corner, but it never seems to arrive.

George Will further warns that the United States is in danger of the disease which plagued the German Weimar Republic: Rightists claimed that German liberals had lost WW1 by defeatism (the "backstab" theory). This divided the republic into mutually hostile factions and undermined democracy in Germany.

In fact, we already had a bout of the "backstab" disease after the Vietnam War. It is asserted on the right that the war would have been successful if Congress had not cut off aid in the face of a North Vietnamese offensive. Melvin Laird: "The truth about Vietnam that revisionist historians conveniently forget is that the United States had not lost when we withdrew in 1973. In fact, we grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory two years later when Congress cut off the funding for South Vietnam that had allowed it to continue to fight on its own. "

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84604-p10/melvin-r-laird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html

This is where Bush's analogy breaks down: He blames the fall of Vietnam not on the aid cut-off, but on the withdrawal of troops, that is Nixon's "Vietnamization" plan, which is generally praised by conservatives as a success . . . This was in fact the model for our previous strategy in Iraq:

Our strategy can be summed up this way: As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and when our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom, our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051119-5.html

So, Bush is condemning as defeatist the strategy he himself previously endorsed.

The central problem in Iraq is that the Iraqis have *not* stood up for their country, they have divided into warring militias. It is folly to suppose that the United States can prop up the Iraq state by military force, when the Iraqis themselves have no confidence in it. The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that the situation in Iraq is worse.

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

DRESDEN vs HIROSHIMA / NAGASAKI

2007-08-09T21:18:24Z

Both intensily controvertial moments from World War II,

The fire bombings of Dresden,

The nuclear bombs dropped over both Hiroshima AND Nagasaki.....

were these bombings necessary to win the war???....

Lets' hear it!!

posted in Armchair Historians - 69 replies

WWII the missing pices

2007-08-09T12:03:31Z

I've been a world war II buff for some time now, and have found a lot to read and watch on the subject. While there are some things there seem to be no end to meteal on, Pearla Harber, D_Day and so on, there are other I can find all most nothing about. These are:
1943 in the Pacific
China North of the Hump air fields
Red Chines after 1941
Russia after Kursk and before Berlen.

Any help Please?
Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 19 replies

Red China's army

2007-08-09T11:31:02Z

Can some one recomend a good book on history of the Red Army?

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

Are there any anti-communist films coming out of Hollywood?

2007-08-08T17:51:05Z

All I ever see are positive spins on communism: The Motorcycle Diaries, Reds,,,etc...

or anti-american films depicting the US Government push to rid hollywood and America of communist influence. ( you name the films...I'm not here top promote them )

I have never seen any films depicting the horrors of communism, not coming out of Hollywood, anyway......

God knows they have been responsible for the most deaths in the 20th century...what with the horrors attributed to Mao and Stalin and post WW II leaders in the Eastern block nations and to a smaller extent, but no less horrible, Castro and his ilk.

Please help me....If i'm missinformed...I would LOVE to know....

posted in Armchair Historians - 32 replies

Fine ancient jewelry for history geeks

2007-07-25T05:03:55Z

Hello, my name is Kerry Drew, AKA Sir Kerry the Rock.

An active member of SCA back in the late 60's, I have been a history buff since I was 8 or 9 and I am especially interested in the Scythians, Celts, Mayans, Greeks, Thracians, and Ancient Egyptian cultures, but nothing of historical significance fails to interest me.

I am a highly skilled jeweler, and metalsmith, with over 30 years experience, who offers his services to the general public, but particularly to those who prize fine craftsmanship in antiquities, and ancient style jewelry.

In order to support myself and pay for my collecting hobby, I sell hand-crafted jewelry, and high quality fine art reproductions on Ebay, as well as directly to the public. Custom jewelry commissions are welcomed!

Currently, I have several items available which any true lover of ancient art and antiquities might wish to see, and very possibly own!

Here is one notable example, an auction item which is ending very soon, of special interest to Viking buffs:

http://tinyurl.com/2shefe

I am offering Celtic, Viking, Egyptian, Roman, and other fine items of authentic historical jewelry.

Please patronize your fellow tribe members, and myself in particular!

http://stores.ebay.com/HYPERBOREAN-GIFTS

(Help keep a well meaning jeweler, and artisan on the straight and narrow!)

In addition, I specialize in the careful treatment of antiquities, while reproducing them, so that the designs can be worn and appreciated on a regular basis, with no risk to rare and fragile antiquities.

Should you have a ring, seal, scarab, buckle, amulet or other item of any material, which you would like to reproduce, in silver, gold or bronze, please let me know.

References are available by request.

Thanks for your kind attention!

Sincerely,

Kerry Drew @}:^)>c

Richmond California, USA

kerryika@gmail.com

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Bush v. the Historians

2007-07-11T17:03:02Z

Perhaps in part because of his shabby academic record, George W. Bush has never made a good impression on historians. As early as 2004, in a survey of 415 historians, 81% rated his administration as a failure.

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html

It is probably safe to assume that his rating has not improved since then. Historians give him a much lower rating than he receives in popular opinion polls, so one may assume a political bias among historians. On the other hand, some strongly conservative presidents (especially Reagan) are generally rated much higher than Bush, a difference which cannot be attributed solely to liberal bias.

Bush himself has sometimes scorned the opinions of historians: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead," he told Woodward in 2004. But in the next breath, he claimed historical credit for victory in Afghanistan and Iraq: "The big news out of this isn't how George W. makes decisions. To me the big news is America has changed how you fight and win war, and therefore makes it easier to keep the peace in the long run. And that's the historical significance of this book, as far as I'm concerned."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17347-2004Apr16.html

Now, this historical lesson on "how you fight and win war" seems less creditable than it once did. Recently, Bush has taken comfort in the history of Harry Truman, once a very unpopular president: "Fortunately, we had a President named Harry Truman, who recognized the threat, took bold action to confront it, and laid the foundation for freedom's victory in the Cold War."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060527-1.html\

One wonders what "foundations" Bush thinks he has laid: Anything equal to NATO, the United Nations and Marshall Plan? Surrounded by supportive aides, he may well imagine that he has:

A tiny trusted circle around the president constantly reassures him that he is a messianic liberator and profound freedom fighter, on a par with FDR and Lincoln, and that history will vindicate his every act and utterance.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/worst_president_in_history/page/2

As he comes to the end of his term, history is a subject of growing interest to the President; soon it will be all there is left of his administration. And he continues to dream that he will one day be vindicated. Today he stated at a press conference:

This may not interest you, but I'll tell you anyway -- I read three histories on George Washington last year. It's interesting to me that they're still analyzing the presidency of our first President. And my attitude is, if they're still analyzing 1, 43 doesn't need to worry about it. (Laughter.) I'm not going to be around to see the final history written on my administration.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517.html

My question is, does he have any reason for confidence? We don't need to see another list of his failures. What I want to know is, does he have any notable accomplishments? What would they be?

posted in Armchair Historians - 39 replies

40th anniversary of Israeli attack on U.S.

2007-06-14T04:02:14Z

Today is the 40th anniversary of the unprovoked attack by Israel on the intelligence-gathering ship USS Liberty which left 34 American sailors dead.

Read about it here: http://www.ussliberty.org/

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Black Plague

2007-05-23T13:17:21Z

Does anyone know how/when it came to Europe, or how long it stuck around? Or how many people it killed?

posted in Armchair Historians - 32 replies

Quiz #6

2007-05-22T22:30:05Z

Okay well here's an obscure but easy one. Who will be the next horse out of the gate?

Question: How did Tamerlane get his name? Bonus question: What was his relationship to Sullyman?

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Answer for #5

2007-05-19T22:29:18Z

The Packers were the closest I could come to without giving it away. You got it dude! Good googling. IT'S NOW A THREE HORSE RACE! Wooooo! Check out the big brain on Brad! (Pulp Fiction)

The Pestigo fire and the Chicago fire both happened the same night of October 8th, 1971 leading some to believe that they were connected via some kind of big meteror shower. This hypothesis is still a contentious debate. In any event the Peshtigo fire was the largest ever in North America. It's like taking every huge California wildfire you have ever seen and puting them all together. And even THEN, it's bigger. When it swept into the area of GREEN BAY wisconsin, it was five miles wide and a mile tall moving at 50 miles an hour. After burning it's way to the water, the burning cinders were sufficient enough to LEAP GREEN BAY and start a conflagration on the other side wiping-out about a dozen towns total on both sides.

In Peshtigo which I guess was the worst hit, they buried 400 bodies in a mass grave which you can see if you google it. So, those clues DO fit-together you see? Incidentally, when the U.S.A.A.F. firebombed Tokyo in 1945, they studied the Peshtigo event as an example of what could happen. That one raid killed about 100,000 people.

Three horse race now. Forest horse leads by half a length. He only gets the half a point cause the Nazis at the South Pole info I never knew about.

Swaz

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Quiz #5 (cheating okay)

2007-05-19T22:27:46Z

Okay now for this one I'm going to sound like a schizo-alzheimer-retard and you're task is to connect the dots and make sense of this. Cheating is okay. What a mench I am. Okay....

THE GREENBAY PACKERS CAUSED THE CHICAGO FIRE WITH AN ASTEROID!

posted in Armchair Historians - 6 replies

Quiz #4

2007-05-18T13:17:08Z

I am going to make this one in reverse like jeopardy. To answer you must do it in the form of a question. This is some real cool historical shit on this one. Try not to google unless it is built into your armchair.

A: This is a "Vespuccian".

posted in Armchair Historians - 8 replies

Quiz #3

2007-05-17T22:37:14Z

Man you cheaters are making my life hard with this. But I must admit I'm having fun. Be like the Forrest horse and venture a guess. That Forrest horse is a smart horse. Now then...

Question: What people explored and colonized more unknown territory than anyone else in history? The answer will surprise you and is certain to foster quite a debate. Even if you cheat and google you'll be buried in a morass of data.

posted in Armchair Historians - 16 replies

Quiz #2

2007-05-11T04:56:56Z

Okay. I'm really trying hard with this one cause I know you guys are all going to google everything and pretend you're a BRILLIANT horse. (this is a fair horse race. No doping) So then....

Question: Over the years many places in the Antarctic have been named after either their discoverers or in honor of something or someone from their home countries. What did the Nazi's name?

posted in Armchair Historians - 11 replies

1632-1634

2007-05-10T13:15:46Z

Any one out there that's read David Weber and Eric Flint's history fictions 1632, 1633, or 1634 who can tell me how well they caught the feel of the 30 years war?

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Quiz #1

2007-05-10T00:51:27Z

On the West Coast of Africa there is a country named Sierra Leone. How did it get it's name? There will be 100 in this series. Let's see who wins the horse race.

Swaz

posted in Armchair Historians - 11 replies

GEORGE B. McCLELLAN - Young Napoleon? or Arrogant, insubordinate coward?

2007-05-07T06:48:46Z

GEORGE B. McCLELLAN - Young Napoleon? or Arrogant, insubordinate coward?

posted in Armchair Historians - 7 replies

Attila's burial and it's location

2007-05-06T14:29:09Z

I am wondering if anyone has ever come across a source that mentioned the type of burial he recieved and a where.

In my distant memory, I believe someone told me that his men buried him under a river.

Don't worry, I'm not like that guy who keeps bugging Mongolians about the wherabouts of Ghengis Khan's burial site. lol!

I'm actually more interested if there is an account on how it was done.

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Eric Flint

2007-05-04T02:51:19Z

Any one out there that's read David Weber and Eric Flint's history fictions 1632, 1633, or 1634 who can tell me how well they caught the feel of the 30 years war?

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Grassy Knoll

2007-05-03T18:04:32Z

I've never been the least interested in the various Kennedy conspiracy theories, except maybe as exhibits in my mental museum of conspiracy theories. But David Talbot, whose journalism I respect, just wrote a book called Brothers, which details Bobby Kennedy's investigations into his brother's death. Apparently, he did believe that things were not what they seemed. There's an excerpt here: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/02/brothers/

I'm not so much that this book proves that there really was a conspiracy, or aims to. Rather, it demonstrates that Bobby thought there was one, which is interesting. Whether the former US Attorney General was onto something, or thinking through a haze of grief, I don't know.

There's an excerpt here: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/05/02/brothers/

Thoughts?

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Only have one

2007-05-02T00:21:48Z

Just last night Arbian nights was playing on Tevee, and the way I think I have been wondering lots and lots about the advent of A-bomb , H-bomb and debates of where to drop it if a foreign power decided to hit *just* one city. In Arabian nights the famous Aladin had *only * three wishes. Ahhh, *and this only*** question plagues me historically,
Back in the Early Cold war days college students would morbidly debate the question of it a foriegn country intented to drop *just their one* bomb on a city, which would it be.
Many claimed that New York should be the target, and every disaster movie seems to confirm (as well as the recent 9?11/2001 attack) that this is the place to best strike and
cripple the U.S.A. but as the recent Hurricane that wiped out New Orleans spurred someone to post on one of my Yahoo groups, actually New Orleans now, but especially during the early cold war years, it was an excellent choice as a target because of the
economic value as the bottle neck of most of the manufactured goods and grains, meats
ect produced in the Bread Basket of G.N.P of U.S.A.
Currently San Diego (my home) considers itself a prime target because of the military
consolidation of equipment and personal here. I still though wonder if a singular miltary
strike would be as useful as a singular strike against the economic underbelly of a nation.
The terrorists struck the WTC I feel because it is/was the center of economic interface with other nations and the business web to the rest of the world. The Pentagon was an obvious
ICONIGRAPHIC target, but not very feasible to hit as there is no true power or assets there.
If a foriegn power wished to cripple U.S.A. where might they *really * hit if they had only
*one shot* with a nuke.? This question for 1954 and for 2008...

Randy
>>>>>>

posted in Armchair Historians - 11 replies

WAR .....WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR???

2007-04-27T16:20:15Z

Is war EVER good?.....or justified?....

Was it justified for the United States to go to war during the Civil War?

Was Hitler stoppable without war?.....how about the Japanese?....

posted in Armchair Historians - 38 replies

What kind person was Hitler when he was not in public?

2007-04-25T21:27:20Z

I am wondering if anybody has information how Hitler was as a private person. Maybe interviews with people who dealt with him or similar.
I have never heard any voice recording of him other than his public speeches. Is anybody aware of any recordings?

posted in Armchair Historians - 26 replies

WINSTON CHURCHILL: A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES

2007-04-19T23:42:12Z

Well written , knowledgeable and interesting, this is an excellent primer for the casual historian. Insightful comments on the events that sometimes seem small but have an effect in shaping the direction of history...

Churchill observes that the English-speaking people have played an important role in shaping the economic progress and political freedoms that the world at large enjoys.

From abolition to property rights to political independence....

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

watching events become hiSTORY

2007-04-17T19:14:15Z

I don't know if everyone can view the "discussions" page on wiki, but these last two days have been fascinating to watch a single event without present historical implications, become "hiSTORY', as wiki editors tackled teh events as they came in, to fashion teh "article".

what facts matter, what facts don't matter, and what fights shall we get into to demand our facts stay in the article.

almost as fascinating to watch humans edit teh story, as to see people have to deal with the very reality of a violent culture.

i'm sure the news is much teh same way, in building history out of an event, too young to have history. course we do it all the time "BLIZZARD OF 2007!!!!"

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

United Nations: Mend It or End It

2007-04-17T19:00:15Z

United Nations: Mend It or End It

The US taxpayers fund more than twenty percent of the annual budget of the United Nations. We house them in New York City, on some of the most valuable real estate in the world. We constantly defer to them on matters of international importance, even at the risk of our own security. Why do we continue to fund this collection of advocates for international criminals and dictators?

Recent speeches given by world leaders at the UN have brought the problems plaguing that organisation into sharp focus. The President of the United States made a speech about spreading freedom, democracy, human rights and reform, and received some polite applause. A Communist dictator from Venezuela and the mouthpiece of the Islamofascist theocrats who rule Iran made speeches attacking America, accusing our country and our President of horrible crimes, and received ovations.

"Every nation that travels the road to freedom moves at a different pace, and the democracies they build will reflect their own culture and traditions," President Bush told the assembled delegates. "But the destination is the same: A free society where people live at peace with each other and at peace with the world." Hugo Chavez of Venezuela repeatedly referred to President Bush as "the devil" during his own speech, ostentatiously crossing himself, and complained that "it smells of sulfur still today." Ahmadinejad of Iran ended his speech with a prayer for the return of the 12th Imam, asking that Allah "make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause." (Imagine the furor that would have erupted had President Bush ended his speech by praying for the Rapture and asking that God make everyone a Christian.)

Every year, thousands of lives are lost to the UN's corruption and vacillation, and untold numbers of crimes, large and small, are committed by its representatives. I'm not just talking about the reams of unpaid parking tickets issued annually by the NYC police, either. More than 800,000 Tutsi and Hutu died in Rwanda in 1994 while UN troops watched, prevented from acting by layers of bureacracy and a divided Security Council. Thousands of Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered by Serbs in Srebrenica while UN observers, well, observed. More recently, UN peacekeepers watched as Hizballah terrorists launched rockets attacks against Israeli civilians on a daily basis, even reporting that Hizballah "fired from the vicinity of five UN positions" in July 2006. Indeed, the UN's legacy of inaction is exceeded in criminality only by its actions.

After President Clinton brought NATO in to stop the slaughter in the Balkans, the region was turned over to the UN, by whom it is mismanaged to this day. UN peacekepers ran forced prostitution rings in Bosnia and Kosovo until turned in by an American worker. UN peacekeepers have been involved in rape, slavery, child prostitution, black marketeering, bribery and food-for-sex scandals from East Timor to West Africa. In the biggest disgrace in history, France, Russia and China used their votes on the Security Council to prevent action against Saddam Hussein in order to protect oil contracts they had made with his regime while he brutalised the Iraqi people. Prominent and influential people in those countries and many more took bribes from Saddam to use their influence on his behalf. The scandal reached all the way up to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself.The largest criminal organisation in history -- that's what our tax dollars are funding.

Right now, genocidal attacks are taking place against blacks in the Darfur region of Sudan, carried out by the Arab Janjaweed militias, while the UN passes resolutions "deploring" the slaughter but doing nothing to stop it. Sudan, coincidentally, is a member of the UN's Human Rights Commission, along with Cuba, Libya and China. Iran has defied repeated UN demands to stop enriching uranium in pursuit of nuclear weapons, while Russia and China -- again protecting their business partner, as they did Iraq -- block the Security Council from recommending even the weakest sanctions. Iran, again coincidentally, is vice-Chair of the Disarmament Commission. After ten years of trying, the UN is still unable to write a resolution condemning terrorism, for fear of offending terror-supporting member states. In fact, the United Nations is unable to do anything at all to fulfill its purpose, which -- as written into its charter -- was "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

The problem stems from the UN's insistence on treating all member states the same, regardless of their record on human rights, terrorism, war or democracy. It is long past time for us to either change the United Nations or disband it in favor of a more effective council of nations. Either way, nations who do not practice democracy within their own borders should not be allowed to cast votes on any international actions. Pretending that delegates of governments that do not represent their people somehow speak for those people is a joke. Nations under any kind of censure for disarmament or human rights abuses should not be allowed to sit on, let alone chair, those commissions.

As long as we continue to pretend that the United Nations is what it should be, rather than what it is, we have no hope of reforming it. It's time to look at the UN's problems honestly and work to fix them, or else halt its funding and remove its headquarters from our soil.

Posted at Sunday, September 24, 2006 by CavalierX

http://guardian.blogdrive.com/

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

How Vietnam Really Ended

2007-04-11T20:00:08Z

How Vietnam Really Ended
Events abroad—not domestic anti-war activism—brought the war to an end.
By Gideon Rose
Posted Monday, Jan. 22, 2007, at 11:14 AM ET
With the Iraq war going badly and a hostile Congress looking for the exit, comparisons to Vietnam are all the rage. Accounts of that war's endgame have generally been spun politically or distorted by hindsight, however.

Congressional anti-war activism, for example, was neither a heroic reining in of a runaway government (as the left claims) nor a perfidious stab in the back (as the right charges). It was simply the predictable epilogue to a drama that had largely played itself out years before. And while domestic politics established the broad guidelines within which different administrations operated, White House officials had substantial leeway to set policy as they wished. The real constraints, then as now, lay not in what was saleable at home but in what was achievable abroad.

http://www.slate.com/id/2158016/

posted in Armchair Historians - 37 replies

WWF

2007-03-30T04:10:27Z

After reading through a back log of posts, I realized that with all the posing, name calling, ete, its like WWF for geeks.

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

kurd

2007-03-29T08:12:04Z

would anybody answer me when the kurdish nation was divided into 5 countries, and why?

posted in Armchair Historians - 18 replies

Anyone Interested in 18th Century Ideas and History

2007-01-28T01:30:10Z

Open Invitation for Anyone Interested in 18th Century Ideas and History:
"Dr. Johnson and the Age of Reason" is a group for anyone interested in "the long 18th century" from Voltaire to the fall of Napoleon. Thomas Paine, London coffeehouses, Franklin, Voltaire, Burke, the French and American revolutions and theTerror-- I'm fascinated by how these people shaped our world and how many of the arguments carry on in modern dress.
It may especially interest those persons fond of Dr. Samuel Johnson, late of Gough Square, London, just around the corner from the Cheshire Cheese (where for many years lived the foulest-mouthed parrot in London, who, being exhausted from imitating the sound of a champagne cork on New Years, 1926, died of an apoplexy, and whose obituary was featured in over 200 newspapers.)
The tribe address is http://tribes.tribe.net/drjohnson

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Nolichucky Jack and the Fourteenth State

2007-01-25T20:18:22Z

(reposted with corrections)

http://www.sitemason.com/files/lcPalq/johnsevier.jpg

Every schoolchild knows there were thirteen original states. But time and history have forgotten our fourteenth state - the one the others would not accept into the Union.

Our fourteenth state (actually, its founders called it an independent republic) existed for only four years, from 1784 to 1788. During that time it was a subject of continuous controversy and bitter debate. At one point, its governor came close to signing a treaty with Spain that would have been disastrous for the fledgling United States. He also almost got into a war with North Carolina. But what could one expect from a state that would elect a governor named "Nolichucky Jack?"

The fourteenth state covered an area of 29 million acres and was named after one of the nation's most illustrious founding fathers - Benjamin Franklin. It was called the Free Republic of Franklin.

The Franklin saga began in the early 1780s, when North Carolina's western border extended all the way to the Mississippi River. At the conclusion of the War for Independence, public funds were in short supply, and especially so in North Carolina. With the end of the war, hundreds of Carolinians crossed the mountains to settle in North Carolina's western wilderness. By 1784, the frontier inhabitants were demanding that North Carolina's government protect them from hostile Indians and roving bands of outlaws that plagued their settlements.

Most North Carolinians considered the western settlers to be little more than ruffians and outlaws themselves and did not want to spend their tax money to protect them. That prompted North Carolina Governor Alexander Martin to come up with a plan that proved politically popular with his constituents. He dumped the problem into the lap of the Continental Congress. At the urging of the governor, the North Carolina Assembly ceded its western lands back to the Continental Congress, making that body responsible for protecting the wilderness region. What Governor Martin did not plan on was the fierce independence of the western settlers or the stubborn nature of Nolichucky Jack.

Jack's real name was John Sevier. A native Virginian descended from a French Huguenot family, his exploits as a frontier character were legendary. He was a hero at the Battle of King's Mountain during the War for Independence and before that had earned a reputation as a pathfinder and Indian fighter.

Shortly after North Carolina ceded the territory to the Continental Congress, Sevier and a group of his frontier cronies held a secession convention. On August 23, 1784, they declared North Carolina's western counties of Sullivan, Greene, and Washington to be independent. Sevier and his friends then held a constitutional convention and formed a provisional government they called the Free Republic of Franklin. Sevier was elected its governor.

The secession of the western counties did not concern Governor Martin. That was a problem for the Continental Congress. But the formation of an independent republic on his western border upset him mightily. He quickly moved to have the North Carolina Assembly reclaim the territory, but by then the Franklinites were enjoying their new status as a free state. North Carolina, they insisted, had no jurisdiction over their republic. Governor Martin responded by declaring the western territory in a state of rebellion and threatened to send troops to reclaim it. Sevier responded by vowing to raise an army to defend his republic.

On May 16, 1785, William Cooke, representing Franklin, arrived in New York to present to the Continental Congress a petition seeking statehood. Caught by surprise, North carolina's delegation protested. Following a heated debate, a vote was taken. Seven states voted to admit Franklin to the Union. Although a majority, it fell two votes short of the required two-thirds needed for approval.

What followed was a period of chaos in Franklin. Because it had no means to back a currency, barter became the prevailing system of exchange. Governor Sevier's salary was fixed at 1,000 deer hides per year.

North Carolina would not give up its claim to the territory. In 1786, the North Carolina Assembly passed the Act of Oblivion. It promised to waive all back taxes if the citizens of Franklin would simply return to the fold. But, behind the scene, others were wooing Franklin. Across the ocean, Spain's monarchy was formulating a plan to form a number of frontier colonies into a Spanish alliance in North America. A minister from Spain arrived in Franklin, seeking Governor Sevier's cooperation. Had Sevier accepted the Spanish proposal, he might have become a wealthy man; but he turned it down.

Ignoring Franklin's claim of independence, North Carolina sent its own officials into the republic, creating two sets of authorities and a great deal of confusion. Rival clerks of court issued marriage licenses and recorded land transactions. Rival justices handed down conflicting decisions, and rival sheriffs got into fistfights. It seemed everyone was in control - and no one. Taxes went unpaid because no one was sure to whom they should be paid.

In exasperation, William Cooke wrote to Benjamin Franklin, urging him to intervene on behalf of the republic that bore his name, pointing out that the region was in a state bordering on anarchy. As it turned out, the aging Franklin was so far out of touch he was not even aware the troubled republic was named for him. In a letter of reply dated August 12, 1786, he noted: "I had never before been acquainted that the name of your new state had any relation with my name, having understood that it was called Frankland."

Franklin went on to suggest that representatives from Franklin and North Carolina approach Congress to serve as a mediator. But North Carolina's legislative delegation was working behind the congressional scenes. In November of 1787 Congress decided that a new state could be admitted to the Union only after affirmation of nine of the thirteen states "and the consent of the state that originally claimed the territory." North Carolina had won the legal battle, but the ever-combative Nolichucky Jack was not about to give up.

In desperation, Governor Sevier turned once more to Spain, requesting a defense loan to protect Franklin's citizens from a military invasion by North Carolina. However, before a deal could be struck, a company of North Carolina law officers, led by John Tipton, invaded Franklin to arrest Sevier, clap him in irons, and spirit him back across the mountains. He had barely settled in his jail cell when a contingent of frontiersmen from Franklin showed up to break him out of jail and escort him back home.

By then, Sevier had realized the futility of continuing the struggle. In February of 1788, he and other leaders of the ill-fated venture crossed the mountains into North Carolina and surrendered to authorities. They stood trial, but their only punishment was to take an oath of allegiance to the State of North Carolina.

Ironically, Sevier wouldbecome a state senator representing Greene County in the North Carolina legislature. Also odd: As soon as things settled down, North Carolina once more ceded the same territory back to the federal government. This time it was accepted by Congress, and the "Territory of the United States of America South of the Ohio River" was formed. On June 1, 1796, a new state was created from the territory that once had been the troublesome Republic of Franklin.

They named it Tennessee. Its first governor was none other than the illustrious Nolichucky Jack Sevier.

-Thomas Ayres

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Movies about ancient Rome

2007-01-09T20:17:52Z

Hi....I've been in love with movies about this time period since I was a kid,and I know that from an historical aspect most are totally incorrect but that doesn't stop me from loving them. Films like Quo Vadis,Spartacus,sign of the Cross,Cleopatra..right up to Gladiator.It made me want to read everything i could on the empire. but it always seems funny to me that nobody made a film about the later years of Rome. I always thought Hadrian's life would make a perfect movie. Any others you can think of

Mike

posted in Armchair Historians - 7 replies

While there is some talking of Rome...

2006-12-29T06:39:30Z

First, thank you to Melissa, Duchess of Pie, moderator of this tribe, for sharing in a pic I uploaded to this tribe quite some time ago, as the main pic -- Veduta de Avanzi della Villa di Mecenate, by Giovanni Piranesi. Thanks!

When I first stumbled upon Piranesi in the late 90's, and upon this etching in particular, his etchings helped to bring so much more of Roman history (and history, in general) into clarity. Of all the Piranesi etchings that I have, this one stands out for many reasons, especially as a view of history, of Roman history, architecture, romantique, and, as I soon came to find (as I was espeially struck by the etching as a whole, at first) upon closer inspection, as an allegory of sorts upon some reflections of the human condition.

I'm interested to hear other points of view on this etching -- if for nothing else, this will be sort of a first for me, discussing this art with folks who have a variety of viewpoints to contribute.

I also draw your attention to the link below, where you can zoom in a bit upon the etching. Unfortunately, when I first uploaded this image to this tribe and elsewhere on tribe.net, the link provided then allowed you to zoom a bit closer than current program will allow. Anyways, there are five noticeable people in the etching, and, like many Piranesi etchings, they provide a story, two, or more within the larger canvas.

What does this etching say to you?

Towards the bottom left, just right of the title heading, one will see what seems to be two men, discussing something.....

But the other three people in the etching have been particularly interesting to me -- At the gate of the Villa, up to the entrance, one sees what seems to be a wandering pilgrim, traveller, stopped, looking towards the entrance, ...paused. At the entrance, one seems to make out a half-asleep, or, just plain bored and lazy guard,...But the most interesting figure is just above that entrance, on the next floor of the villa, looking out from the second archway from the left -- a woman, dressed in relatively little, arms raised,...

search.famsf.org:8080/view.shtml

A few of the questions I have always mulled this etching over with:

1) What is Piranesi saying with the ruins and with the villa, its paricular view, the environment, the times he etched it in, and regarding history before then (ca 1763)?

2) Ways that this as other of his etchings are precursor to the approaching age of Romanticism, while as classical as classicism gets...

3) The pilgrim, the woman, and the relation between them according to Piranesi. An etcing of just the villa itself is breathtaking itself. But Piranesi went further, introducing rather unconventional figures - metaphors - stories - allegories.

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Herod got a bum rap

2006-12-14T02:15:56Z

Historians, Fans Defend the 'Real' King Herod
By Nicole Neroulias
Religion News Service

He ruled over the ancient Jews for 37 years, and when it comes to bad publicity, King Herod has reigned supreme ever since.

Annually vilified in Christmas pageants as the tyrant responsible for the slaughter of Bethlehem's baby boys and for chasing Mary, Joseph and Jesus into Egypt, Herod the Great should receive more balanced treatment, some historians and academics argue.

Like most biblical villains -- Judas, Caiaphas and Pontius Pilate, take your pick -- Herod has simply gotten a bad rap, some say.

For example, historians say Herod probably never ordered the Massacre of the Innocents that Christians commemorate in late December.

The account from the Gospel of Matthew may be derived from the execution of three of the king's own sons and the author's desire to convey that even as an infant, Jesus was an acknowledged threat to the establishment.

"Dramatically, it's a story with tremendous power, but there's a kind of irony that the one thing that most people know about Herod is probably wrong," said Peter Richardson, author of "Herod: King of the Jews, Friend of the Romans" and a professor at the University of Toronto.

Basing their views on recorded history and continuing archaeological discoveries, Richardson and other academic experts contend that Herod's brutality and heavy taxation should be taken in the context of the violent Roman Empire and his skills as a diplomat, master builder and enlightened economist.

Herod was born in 74 B.C. to an Arabian princess and a politically active father whose family had converted to Judaism. As a young man, Herod was appointed governor of Galilee. When his father was poisoned in 43 B.C., Herod had the murderer executed, launching a lifelong reputation as a ruler to be reckoned with.

The Roman Senate named Herod "King of the Jews" in 40 B.C., despite controversy at home over his religious lineage. But Herod always claimed to be an observant Jew, evidenced by the discovery of ritual baths in his palaces and records of a joke told by Emperor Caesar Augustus that he'd rather be one of Herod's swine -- safe from slaughter because the king kept kosher -- than one of his sons.

Convinced by their research, members of the Progressive Jewish Bet Tikvah Synagogue in England formed a King Herod Appreciation Society in 2001. Rigid concepts of Jewish identity were used to downplay Herod's accomplishments, they argue, which included rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple, building the largest harbor in the Roman world, alleviating a famine by lowering grain prices and supporting the cash-strapped Olympic Games.

"He was not just a paranoid tyrant, but an idealist and financial genius, way ahead of his time," said Anthony Kerstein, a co-founder of the group. "I believe if he would have been regarded as fully Jewish, his reign would have been regarded as a golden age."

Herod's commitment to Judaism and his positive relationship with Rome meant his subjects were allowed to worship freely. They were granted a rare exemption from the imperial requirements of offering incense to the emperor's statue, serving in the army and swearing oaths in court, Richardson said.

But plenty of historical material depicts Herod as a ruthless man as well as a visionary. Of his 10 wives, he had one executed for accused unfaithfulness; of at least 14 children, three were executed for allegedly conspiring against him. He imposed high taxes on his subjects, in part to finance his grandiose construction projects, and he employed secret police to report on their activities.

He acted brutally to put down dissent. In 4 B.C., Torah students smashed a golden eagle at the Temple -- probably placed for Roman visitors but viewed by opponents as idolatrous -- and he had them burned alive to set an example.

Even though scholars can't find any historical basis for the Bethlehem massacre, they concede it would not have been out of character, and say perhaps the village's tiny size would have kept the act undocumented in the scheme of larger crimes.

At the time of Jesus' birth, Herod would have been an old man in poor health, but in the new film "The Nativity Story," he is portrayed as a vibrant middle-aged ruler overseeing a construction project that had actually been completed decades earlier. Screenwriter Mike Rich explained that he had opted against complete historical accuracy in favor of showing "a composite of his reign." He added scenes showing the building site and Herod's participation in Temple rituals after his first draft to convey more of the character's complexity.

When Herod died of a long, debilitating illness between 4 and 1 B.C.the exact years of both Christ's birth and Herod's death are up for debate -- it seems few mourned him. His kingdom was divided among three of his sons, including Herod Antipas, who is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke's account of Jesus' trial.

Despite the notorious legacy, Herod the Great experts say his misdeeds are simply consistent with despotic behavior across the ages.

They point to England's King Henry VIII -- also fond of executing family members -- Joseph Stalin, and Third World dictators who use force to unite and modernize their countries.

"He wasn't necessarily a nice guy, but he actually did a pretty good job and he lived during a pretty tumultuous political period and both he and Judea survived," said Shaye J.D. Cohen, director of the Center for Jewish Studies at Harvard University.

"When you have powerful leaders that are in power for a long time, inevitably you're going to have pluses and minuses," he added. "Even Mussolini made the trains run on time."

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

The History Channel Sucks!

2006-12-05T15:07:27Z

I used to be a History Channel addict, but now I rarely see anything worth watching. Tonight, they showed "The Road Warrior." This is history? There are still some good History Channel programs, but they're all re-runs and they're on the second cable channel (HIST-I, #276 on my Comcast cable). What happened to these guys?

posted in Armchair Historians - 18 replies

1947project Pasadena Confidential Crime Bus Tour, Thanksgiving Saturday

2006-11-17T18:10:34Z

Spend Thanksgiving weekend steeped in crime with this repeat of the
our popular Pasadena Confidential tour. The Crown City masquerades as
a calm and refined retreat, where well-bred ladies glide around their
perfect bungalows and everyone knows what fork to use first. But don't
be fooled by appearances. Dip into the confidential files of old
Pasadena with the 1947project and meet assassins and lepers,
kidnappers and slashers, Satanists and all manner of maniac in a
delightful little crime bus tour you WON'T find recommended by the
better class of people!

For more info, or to reserve seats, please visit http://www.1947project.com

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Re-Defining Conservatism

2006-11-07T18:44:33Z

By John W. Dean

Today's Republican policies are antithetical to bedrock conservative fundamentals. There is nothing conservative about preemptive wars or disregarding international law by condoning torture. Abandoning fiscal responsibility is now standard operating procedure. Bible-thumping, finger-pointing, tongue-lashing attacks on homosexuals are not found in Russell Krik's classic conservative canons, nor in James Burham's guides to conservative governing. Conservatives in the tradition of former senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan believed in ``conserving" this planet, not relaxing environmental laws to make life easier for big business. And neither man would have considered employing Christian evangelical criteria in federal programs, ranging from restricting stem cell research to fighting AIDs through abstinence.

Candid and knowledgeable Republicans on the far right concede -- usually only when not speaking for attribution -- that they are not truly conservative. They do not like to talk about why they behave as they do, or even to reflect on it. Nonetheless, their leaders admit they like being in charge, and their followers grant they find comfort in strong leaders who make them feel safe.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/07/14/triumph_of_the_authoritarians/

John Dean and I have something in common . . . we both used to be Goldwater conservatives . . .

posted in Armchair Historians - 15 replies

Are they any Cathars left???

2006-10-20T00:22:47Z

By 1215, the Council of Lateran established the Inquisition. During the next 50 years the toll of those killed by this infamous arm of the Roman Catholic Church climbed to one million, more than in all of the other crusades against heresies combined. This was the first time Catholics went to "war" with Catholics.

Are they any Cathars left?

posted in Armchair Historians - 20 replies

The Rroma

2006-10-18T21:22:50Z

Can anyone educate me more on the prevailing theories of the 'homeland' of the "gypsies?" Last I recalled it was guessed that they left what is now India in several waves...any guesses as to why?

Thanks.

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Japan and Sieria

2006-09-28T12:53:53Z

Some people have tried to tell me that there was not WWI in Asia. Yet I’ve heard about very large battles in Siberia as well as Japan taking Germen colonizes. Siberia in particular seems to be and off short of the 1904 Japanese and Russian war. Any good articles on this?

posted in Armchair Historians - 14 replies

Why do they stop there??

2006-09-18T19:23:00Z

I’ve often found myself frustrated by where a history book stops. It seems like educational programs and article keep going over the same ground and ignore other time periods altogether.

Cast in point Rome after the sack. Again and again I’ve come across history of the Goths war with Rome,right up to the time they sacked Rome. Then it’s as if they wipe the place off the face of the Earth, until it magically pops back into existent as the head of the Catholic Church.
But I know Rome was inhabited through out that pointed. It’s hard to believe that it didn’t make at less some attempt to regain some of it’s empire. It’s hard to believe that none of the other would be Rome Empires of that time did not try to claim the city, for it’s name if no other reason.
Anyone know this history?

posted in Armchair Historians - 10 replies

Age of Bronze--Graphic Novel

2006-09-17T05:09:57Z

Hi. Has anyone read the Graphic Novel..Age of Bronze. It's the story of The Trojan War in Graphic form. I recently ran across these 2 Books on Amazon and so far am impressed with them.The drawings look very historical accurate than most Hollywood versions of the story. Ithink there are suppossed to be 7 volumes all together

Mike

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

Greek independence

2006-09-16T01:42:44Z

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_War_of_Independence

I didn't even know the Greeks had been part of the Turky for all those years. Why is it that in the USA they teach so little about Souther Europe. Is there any place else on line to read about this?

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 4 replies

Cinco de Mayo

2006-09-07T05:56:23Z

So were is the best place to get the facts about Cinco de Mayo, in English please.

Patrick

posted in Armchair Historians - 5 replies

The Prince of the Marshes

2006-09-07T03:47:30Z

Sunday Oct. 12, 2003

Painted slogans had appeared on the walls, saying, we reject your occupation. The new politicians made public statements against us and appeared with their militias. There were many poor and jobless in Amara, and our visitors were campaigning for a better economy as the route to peace. One of the first to tell me this was seventy-year-old Sheikh Ismail of the Bahadil tribe, who began, "We will never forget Mr. Grimley."

"Mr. Grimley?" I said.

"Mr. Grimley, your British predecessor here in the 1940s. He irrigated the fields. He worked for the Iraqi people. He made prosperity. The Grimley canal. Ah, Mr. Grimley. These young men outside know nothing. They are bored they are lied to by their clerics. Dealing with them is very easy. If you just give them jobs they will be too busy to turn up and make trouble. No one here really supports these radicals. We are a quiet society, a rural, tribal society that looks up to elders. Simple jobs would be enough: a dollar a day, cleaning the streets and some help with the irrigation. Remember Mr. Grimley."

http://www.slate.com/id/2146691/entry/2146695/

The problem with Americans in the Middle East is not that we are imperialists, but that we stink at it . . . with scant resources, the British built a huge empire . . . we have huge resources and scant results . . .

posted in Armchair Historians - 2 replies

Crimebo and 1947project Crime Bus Pals in the Pasadena Weekly

2006-08-03T19:37:33Z

Just in time for Sunday's Pasadena Confidential tour, we have the cover story on the Pasadena Weekly, with some suitably spooky pix of Crime Clown Crimebo menacing tour hosts Kim and Nathan. Please check it out online, and email to reserve if you want a spot on the bus!

http://www.pasadenaweekly.com

More 1947project Crime Bus info is at
http://www.1947project.com

-Kim

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Grand Historical Theories

2006-07-21T20:23:56Z

Grand historical visions appear and die like mayflies. But are there any lasting all embracing theories put foreward which have been around as long as forever, say from Herodotus or a Roman historian?

Modern examples, such as Professor Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" or Marx's dialect of conflict in economic history or Popper's "Historicism" crop up every so often, crop up and seem pretty sound actually overall. I am specifically interested in the most lasting historical grand narratives.

Any suggestions?

posted in Armchair Historians - 48 replies

American Secularism - book recommendation

2006-07-12T16:29:03Z

I'm only half way through Susan Jacoby's book, "Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism", but for those interested in the separation of church and state, secular humanism, Enlightenment philosophy, and the Constitution, I highly recommend it.

Here's a like to Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805077766/sr=8-1/qid=1152721057/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-8971003-7217559?ie=UTF8

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

children in ancient greece

2006-07-08T01:53:46Z

Hello.

I was wondering if anyone knows of any good books or other resources about the lives of ordinary children in ancient Greece, how childhood and children were seen, and what would have been expected of them. I've been looking for quite some time and have found very little material on what childhood would have been like for boys who were not future rulers or heroes, and even less on what it might have been like for girls that were not from a ruling family. Any leads?

Thank you,
~f.

posted in Armchair Historians - 14 replies

Crazy History

2006-07-08T01:47:13Z

I started reading this page thinking I've never heard of this. Turns out this is a fictional website though it takes a little reading and figuring out to understand this.

http://ib.frath.net/w/Persia

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Poison Gas???

2006-07-08T01:46:32Z

I recently watched a documentary on WWI, while
it was very good documentary, I found it a bit preachy
when it came to the Germans use of poison gas. I`m
sorry but I don`t see anything wrong with them using
gas on the battlefield, the point is, to kill and maim as
many of your enemy as you can, whether it`s done by
land mines, machine guns, tanks, or gas, the result
is what you`re looking for, a body count! Right?

posted in Armchair Historians - 4 replies

Alexander The "GREAT"

2006-07-02T01:17:16Z

Hi I'm new here. Just watched the film Alexander and while not a great film and interesting one at least but it got me to thinking why do we still call Alexander "the Great".It seems by all the reading I did on his life that he was an arrogant man with an huge ego. Also a man who loved to sack and destroy entire cities and it's people at a whim. I know that he brought the greek culture to many parts of the unknown world but at what cost. Maybe I'm wrong but that doesn't seem so "great" in my eyes. What do you think.

Mike

posted in Armchair Historians - 36 replies

Karl Rove as Mark Hanna

2006-06-29T17:05:18Z

Dead Men Talking
Karl Rove dumps his old hero.
By Bruce Reed
Posted Tuesday, June 27, 2006, at 11:16 AM ET
Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Moose and Squirrel: Stop the presses—Karl Rove is switching parties.

For a quarter-century or more, Rove has been telling friends that he would be the next Mark Hanna—the industrialist turned political boss who elected William McKinley president, only to see his successor, Teddy Roosevelt, become a reform crusader. Three years ago, an old friend of Rove's told Ron Suskind of Esquire, "Some kids want to grow up to be president. Karl wanted to grow up to be Mark Hanna. We'd talk about it all the time. We'd say, 'Jesus, Karl, what kind of kid wants to grow up to be Mark Hanna?' "

When George W. Bush ran for president, Rove used his fancy for McKinley and Hanna to distract reporters from more obvious historical parallels—such as that Bush's father was a failed, one-term president, or that the elder Bush would nickname his son "Quincy" in honor of two other failed, one-term presidents.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Rove's mind, McKinley was the first compassionate conservative. "He saw that the issues that had dominated American politics since the 1860s had sort of worn themselves out," Rove told the Washington Post in 2000. "Neither party could successfully appeal upon the basis of their Civil War allegiances." Bush and Rove weren't in any rush to put the Civil War behind them, so compassionate conservatism was the next best thing: flying the Confederate flag, but at half mast.

The urge to elect another McKinley (and to be the next Hanna) was a strangely mediocre ambition. It's hard to imagine the late Lloyd Bentsen winning a debate by declaring, "I knew Bill McKinley. Bill McKinley was a friend of mine. And governor, you're no Bill McKinley."

Nonetheless, Rove stayed loyal to the 1896 analogy. As James Traub noted last week in the New York Times, Rove gave a speech in 2002 about how much McKinley had done to draw new voting blocs to the Republican Party. Earlier this month, Rove's eye wandered a bit, when he told the New Hampshire GOP that his favorite presidential quote was from Warren Harding. Yet Harding was in the McKinley-Hanna mold—all three were undistinguished Republicans who might have done more damage had they not died in office.

But as Jacob Weisberg foresaw last November in a piece called "Karl Rove's Dying Dream," you can't party like it's 1896 forever. Instead of the Republican realignment Rove had promised, Bush began dragging his party down with him. In effect, conservatives were telling Bush the cruelest words Rove had ever heard: "You're no Bill McKinley."

Bullies: This week, we have proof that Rove's dream is as dead as McKinley. In fact, Rove wrote the obituary himself.

In a fawning Time essay that would make Mark Hanna roll over in his grave, Karl Rove finds a new hero—Hanna's nemesis, Teddy Roosevelt, who left the Republican fold in 1912 to found the Bull Moose Party. Rove sounds as Bully as Marshall Wittmann: "Theodore Roosevelt is one of the most remarkable figures in America's story. ... He was among our most consequential Presidents."

Rove tries hard to portray TR with the official White House talking points about Bush: character, leadership, animated by big ideas, "makes ardent friends and bitter enemies." But as even Rove must realize, that moose won't hunt. Roosevelt is consequential for all the reasons Bush is not: Unlike the current president, TR stood up for the common man, took on established interests, and showed a boundless energy for solving the nation's problems.

Why, nearly a century after McKinley's and Hanna's deaths, would Karl Rove suddenly throw them over? Unlike Roosevelt, Rove never stopped any bullets, but he has been sweating plenty of them. Perhaps all those grand jury appearances made Rove see the light and realize that Hanna was wrong to worship what goes on behind closed doors.

More likely, Rove is enough of a history buff to know that he's on the wrong side of it. TR-ism, not W-ism, is the only viable future for the Republican Party. Rove wants historians to give Bush credit for a new Republican era, even if—like Hanna—Rove himself became one of its greatest obstacles. With the primaries coming up, Karen Hughes is already working on Bush's new slogan: He's not an enemy of reform; he's a "Roosevelt with results." ... 11:11 A.M. (link)

http://www.slate.com/id/2144577/

It's kind of bizarre imagining Dubya in the role of "Trust-Busting Teddy" . . . more like "Fund-Raising Teddy" . . . on the other hand, I can't think of a lot of good historical role-models for Dubya, he should probably stick with the McKinley thing . . .

posted in Armchair Historians - 1 reply

The Western Tradition

2006-06-25T18:52:09Z

How many of you remember this program hosted by UCLA professor Eugen Weber?
Here's a great resource where you can watch all episodes for free (although you must sign up and create a
password).

http://www.learner.org/resources/series58.html

posted in Armchair Historians - 3 replies

Worst President Ever?

2006-06-25T14:00:32Z

Obviously, the Bush Administration isn't over yet, but some historians are already taking a position:

Bush came to office in 2001 pledging to govern as a "compassionate conservative," more moderate on domestic policy than the dominant right wing of his party. The pledge proved hollow, as Bush tacked immediately to the hard right. Previous presidents and their parties have suffered when their actions have belied their campaign promises. Lyndon Johnson is the most conspicuous recent example, having declared in his 1964 run against the hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater that "we are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." But no president has surpassed Bush in departing so thoroughly from his original campaign persona.

The heart of Bush's domestic policy has turned out to be nothing more than a series of massively regressive tax cuts -- a return, with a vengeance, to the discredited Reagan-era supply-side faith that Bush's father once ridiculed as "voodoo economics." Bush crowed in triumph in February 2004, "We cut taxes, which basically meant people had more money in their pocket." The claim is bogus for the majority of Americans, as are claims that tax cuts have led to impressive new private investment and job growth. While wiping out the solid Clinton-era federal surplus and raising federal deficits to staggering record levels, Bush's tax policies have necessitated hikes in federal fees, state and local taxes, and co-payment charges to needy veterans and families who rely on Medicaid, along with cuts in loan programs to small businesses and college students, and in a wide range of state services. The lion's share of benefits from the tax cuts has gone to the very richest Americans, while new business investment has increased at a historically sluggish rate since the peak of the last business cycle five years ago. Private-sector job growth since 2001 has been anemic compared to the Bush administration's original forecasts and is chiefly attributable not to the tax cuts but to increased federal spending, especially on defense. Real wages for middle-income Americans have been dropping since the end of 2003: Last year, on average, nominal wages grew by only 2.4 percent, a meager gain that was completely erased by an average inflation rate of 3.4 percent.

The monster deficits, caused by increased federal spending combined with the reduction of revenue resulting from the tax cuts, have also placed Bush's administration in a historic class of its own with respect to government borrowing. According to the Treasury Department, the forty-two presidents who held office between 1789 and 2000 borrowed a combined total of $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions. But between 2001 and 2005 alone, the Bush White House borrowed $1.05 trillion, more than all of the previous presidencies combined. Having inherited the largest federal surplus in American history in 2001, he has turned it into the largest deficit ever -- with an even higher deficit, $423 billion, forecast for fiscal year 2006. Yet Bush -- sounding much like Herbert Hoover in 1930 predicting that "prosperity is just around the corner" -- insists that he will cut federal deficits in half by 2009, and that the best way to guarantee this would be to make permanent his tax cuts, which helped cause the deficit in the first place!

The rest of what remains of Bush's skimpy domestic agenda is either failed or failing -- a record unmatched since the presidency of Herbert Hoover. The No Child Left Behind educational-reform act has proved so unwieldy, draconian and poorly funded that several states -- including Utah, one of Bush's last remaining political strongholds -- have fought to opt out of it entirely. White House proposals for immigration reform and a guest-worker program have succeeded mainly in dividing pro-business Republicans (who want more low-wage immigrant workers) from paleo-conservatives fearful that hordes of Spanish-speaking newcomers will destroy American culture. The paleos' call for tougher anti-immigrant laws -- a return to the punitive spirit of exclusion that led to the notorious Immigration Act of 1924 that shut the door to immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe -- has in turn deeply alienated Hispanic voters from the Republican Party, badly undermining the GOP's hopes of using them to build a permanent national electoral majority. The recent pro-immigrant demonstrations, which drew millions of marchers nationwide, indicate how costly the Republican divide may prove.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145488898506&has-player=true

posted in Armchair Historians - 40 replies

Nightmares of Bunker Hill tour, Saturday June 10

2006-06-09T05:46:47Z

Nightmares of Bunker Hill Crime Bus Tour, noon-5pm. $47 includes snacks, beverages and five-hour luxury coach tour.

The 1947 project presents its newest historic L.A. Crime Bus Tour, the downtown-themed Nightmares of Bunker Hill.

Featuring lively tales from the 1880s to the 1970s, Nightmares of Bunker Hill reveals the weird, old L.A. that's not there anymore and the badly-behaved people who didn't make the city great, but sure made it more interesting.

Crime Bus passengers will tour the old Italian/Mexican district (near modern day Chinatown) and visit the scenes of grisly bar fights, tragic suicides, opium dens and rumored hordes of buried treasure, and discover a mysterious local ghost story that's as elegantly spooky as any in England.

Then it's into the heart of the historic business district, where early Angelenoes go toppling into open sewers, toss bottles of acid at former lovers, torment their dentists, attempt to speak to the dead, find severed limbs in their backyards and spit tobacco juice on the backs of ladies' ball gowns.

For more info, to purchase your ticket via paypal or make other arrangements, please visit http://www.1947project.com

Mark your calendars too for the debut of the Pasadena Confidential tour, July 22.

posted in Armchair Historians - 0 replies

Which Wars Were Just Wars???

2006-05-13T22:48:44Z

I had this discussion with some friends and while
it was a lively discussion, we never seemed to agree
on which wars that the u.s. has fought was justified.
To me there were only two clear cut wars that were
justified, world war II and the civil war. Am I wrong?
were there others? Or were none justified?

posted in Armchair Historians - 30 replies

TODAY IN HISTORY THREAD

2006-04-06T15:04:15Z

today's the birthday of Malcolm X.
see:

http://www.brothermalcolm.net

posted in Armchair Historians - 99 replies