Author Topic: American History  (Read 184324 times)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Little Rock, Arkansas
« Reply #401 on: July 07, 2022, 03:02:17 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Grover Cleveland, the last, sensible Democratic President
« Reply #402 on: August 11, 2022, 08:47:40 AM »
Hat tip, Reagan biographer Steve Hayward, Powerline:

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B09JPJ711V/amazon0156-20/

Biography by Troy Senik

A Man of Iron: The Turbulent Life and Improbable Presidency of Grover Cleveland

A long-overdue biography of Grover Cleveland—the honest, principled, and plain-spoken president whose country has largely overlooked him.

Featuring a wealth of in-depth research and newly uncovered details, A Man of Iron explores the remarkable life and extraordinary career of Grover Cleveland—one of America’s most unusual presidents and the only one to serve two non-consecutive terms.

Grover Cleveland’s political career—a dizzying journey that saw him rise from obscure lawyer to president of the United States in just three years—was marked by contradictions. A politician of uncharacteristic honesty and principle, he was nevertheless dogged by secrets from his personal life. A believer in limited government, he pushed presidential power to its limits to combat a crippling depression, suppress labor unrest, and resist the forces of American imperialism. A headstrong executive who alienated Congress, political bosses, and even his own party, his stubbornness nevertheless became the key to his political appeal. The most successful Democratic politician of his era, he came to be remembered most fondly by Republicans.

A fascinating look at a unique man presiding over a transformational era, A Man of Iron is a compelling and vivid biography joining the ranks of presidential classics such as David McCullough’s John Adams, Ron Chernow’s Grant, and Amity Shlaes’s Coolidge

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Erasing American History
« Reply #403 on: August 12, 2022, 04:31:21 AM »
Narratives of Founders put weight on slavery

Tours of homes erase triumphs

BY SEAN SALAI THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Plenty of information is available about slavery at the historical homes of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, but not so much about their monumental legacies as Founding Fathers, according to a newly released report.

The analysis by The Heritage Foundation contrasts Mount Vernon’s “balanced portrayal” of slavery and George Washington’s career with Monticello’s relative lack of exhibits dedicated to Jefferson’s legacy beyond fathering children with his slave Sally Hemings.

The conservative think tank says Montpelier devotes even more time to Madison’s role as a slave owner, labels the Constitution a racist document and neglects his role in writing the Bill of Rights and forming the United States.

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, an academic historian of the early American slave trade, said Monticello and Montpelier are doing more than “redressing past oversights about the lives of the enslaved.”

“I’ve assisted many historic house museums in improving their interpretation by bringing to life the enslaved people who lived and toiled on their property,” Mr. Roberts, a former president of Wyoming Catholic College, said in an email. “But Monticello and Montpelier have gone beyond that by virtually erasing their very owners. That isn’t correcting the historical record — it’s replacing it with a hyper-politicized, racialist agenda.”

The report , “A Tale of Three Presidential Houses: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly,” has met with pushback from Montpelier and Monticello officials, who insist their presentations are balanced.

“At Monticello, we are proud of our work to explain and honor the legacy of Thomas Jefferson and his foundational impact on our country and democracy,” a Monticello spokesman said in an email. “We also think it’s important to be honest about all the human beings who lived at Monticello and to recognize their contributions.”

Heritage’s report notes that Monticello offers a 2½-hour tour focusing on slavery and a 45-minute tour of Jefferson’s home. DNA testing in 1998 found that an unidentifi ed male member of the Jefferson family fathered Eston Hemings. In 2000, Monticello’s Thomas Jefferson Foundation issued a statement noting that the nation’s third president may have done so with Sally Hemings.

Since then, Monticello has increasingly affirmed a relationship. It unveiled a “Life of Sally Hemings” exhibit in 2018 that presents Jefferson as the father of four Hemings children.

A Montpelier spokesperson attacked the report more fiercely by saying “the entire estate puts Madison’s life on display.”

“The Heritage Foundation’s report is full of falsehoods intended to advance a supremacist ideology. The tours and exhibits they now criticize were actually developed while a prominent former Heritage Foundation fellow served on the Montpelier board and was subsequently elected as chair,” the Montpelier statement reads. “The only thing that has changed is that our current board chair and the majority of our board members are now Black.

“During The Heritage Foundation’s presentation of the report, Montpelier’s Black leaders’ purported perspectives were called ‘alien’ and ‘foreign.’ That tactic of making Black people the ‘frightening other’ is historically common for those too fragile to accept the telling of full history.”

The report notes that the Montpelier Foundation board of directors voted in March to add 11 members from the Montpelier Descendants Committee. Only one of the new board members descends from someone enslaved at Montpelier.

Heritage senior policy analyst Brenda Hafera, the report’s author, said Montpelier’s board was taken over after the 2017 debut of the estate’s “Mere Distinction of Colour” exhibits. The exhibits highlight slavery and racism, she said, but Madison’s life is discussed only during the house tour and a brief video in the visitor’s center.

In an email, Ms. Hafera criticized Montpelier for “instinctively resorting to the left’s talking point” that criticism of racial politics “is somehow proof of White supremacy.”

“Such an extreme response only draws more attention to the fact that the foundation is desperate to cover up their radical, anti-American history policies,” Ms. Hafera said.

Her report asserts that Mount Vernon offers reconstructed slave quarters, a house tour that mentions slavery and a memorial to the enslaved. It also presents Washington’s opposition to slavery and his decision to free his slaves when he died.

Matt Briney, vice president of media and communications at Mount Vernon, said he would not comment on the report’s interpretation of Montpelier and Monticello.

“I do think it very fairly represents Mount Vernon in that we have incorporated the story of slavery without losing sight of Washington’s service to country and the founding of the nation,” Mr. Briney said.

Some historians defended the increased focus on slavery at the presidential homes.

“It is not possible to exaggerate the importance of ideas about race and the dynamics of human slavery in trying to understand the worldviews of Jefferson, Madison and Washington,” said James Grossman, executive director of the American Historical Association.

Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman, an author of biographies on Madison and Jefferson, warned against minimizing the progress of the three presidents in eliminating slavery.

He said Jefferson took public policy steps to ban slavery from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like Jefferson, Madison supported the abolitionist American Colonization Society.

The Western Connecticut State University professor added that Washington — who took longer to progress “from happy slave owner to opponent of the institution” — ultimately accepted Black men into the Continental Army and freed his slaves in his will.

Still, Mr. Gutzman sees a growing trend of historical sites exaggerating the Founding Fathers’ racial failings.

“I think any account of these men that omits that they were born into a society in which no one questioned slavery’s morality — and that they all came to attack it in ways that played strong roles in persuading Americans it was wrong — is inadequate,” Mr. Gutzman said.


HEMINGS’ HOME: Monticello offers a 45-minute tour of the home of Thomas Jefferson and a 2½-hour tour focusing on slavery. It also has an exhibit on the “Life of Sally Hemings,” who is thought to be the mother of Jefferson children. ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS


GAPS: Visitors to James Madison’s Montpelier home hear more about his role as a slave owner than his accomplishment of writing the Bill of Rights. A spokesperson said “the entire estate puts Madison’s life on display.”


George Washington’s Mount Vernon estate is turning a museum space dedicated to the Founding Father’s furniture and fineries into an exhibit about his life as a slave owner. ASSOCIATED PRESS

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #404 on: August 12, 2022, 05:48:46 AM »
Thomas Jefferson did not found this country


the slaves did !

like the White House . slaves built that !  says Obama who says the same for the rest of the country .

 :roll:




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
GW not father of our country
« Reply #405 on: August 19, 2022, 10:36:18 AM »
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/youngkin-blasts-virginia-education-proposals-seeking-strike-george-washington-father-us

just thinking
since new thought is Africans built America
we could search for African kings ( or Muslim slave traders ) who bought and sold them to US slave traders - if get one of the most prolific one - perhaps that person or those people should be considered father(s) of our country

think 1619

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
PP: Gorbachev dies and MSM buries Reagan
« Reply #406 on: August 31, 2022, 10:18:29 AM »
Gorbachev Dies, and the MSM Buries Reagan
With the death of the Soviet Union's last president, our mainstream media tries to rewrite Cold War history.

Douglas Andrews


"Last Soviet leader Gorbachev, who ended Cold War and won Nobel prize, dies aged 91."

So went the headline of this Reuters obituary, which attempts to rewrite the end of the Cold War as having been unilaterally envisioned and brought about by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.

Ronald Reagan couldn't be reached for comment. Nor could Margaret Thatcher, nor Pope John Paul II.

We know what you're thinking: That's only the headline. No doubt the article makes up for the omission of Reagan by duly noting Gorbachev's indispensable Cold War counterpart in the body copy, right? Surely it mentions the five summit meetings held by the two men from 1985 to 1988 — first in Geneva, then in Reykjavik, then in Washington, then in Moscow, and finally in New York City, right? Surely it mentions Reagan's world-historic 1987 speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Germany — the one where he bucked his senior advisers and electrified the Eastern Bloc by calling on Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," right?

Wrong. There are 817 words in the Reuters article, apparently written by some hack named David Ljunggren, and the words "Ronald Reagan" aren't anywhere among them. Nor is there any mention of the British prime minister known as The Iron Lady nor the pope known as Joannes Paulus Magnus.

Sadly, though, the Reuters outrage isn't an outlier. This article from the Associated Press also fails to mention Reagan — although at least it does so in the caption of a photo of Gorbachev and Reagan that accompanies the article.

Such is the urge among leftists to whitewash — indeed, to bury — the legacy of a great American president and one of the most consequential figures of the 20th century. Heck, not even Soviet cold warriors like Anatoly Dobrynin believe what the American Left has long been peddling about Reagan. Dobrynin was the Soviet Union's ambassador to the U.S. for a span of six U.S. presidents, but his memoir, In Confidence, gives due credit to our nation's 40th president in chapters titled "Reagan: The Thaw" and "Reagan and Ending the Cold War."

If communism was The God That Failed, then Reagan and Gorbachev were the tribunes of that failure — Reagan as captured over decades of his writings as an anticommunist, and Gorbachev as the first Soviet leader who seemed ready to acknowledge the inevitable.

What made Gorbachev so receptive to change, so different than, say, Chernenko or Andropov or Brezhnev or Khrushchev or Stalin or Lenin? Historian Paul Kengor offers this remarkable anecdote:

When Reagan first met Gorbachev at Geneva in November 1985, he was immediately taken by Gorbachev's religious references, which were plainly remarkable coming from the leader of what Reagan rightly called an "Evil Empire." Reagan became deeply intrigued at the possibility that Gorbachev might be (in Reagan's words) a "closet Christian."

When he arrived home from Geneva, Reagan immediately called Michael Deaver. He said of the new current leader of Lenin's and Stalin's atheistic state: "He believes." An incredulous Deaver responded to his president and longtime friend: "Are you saying the general secretary of the Soviet Union believes in God?" Reagan walked his statement back, but only a tiny bit: "I don't know, Mike, but I honestly think he believes in a higher power."

Gorbachev proceeded to suggest that with his stunning overtures on behalf of religious freedom, rolling back his predecessors' brutal "wholesale war on religion," as Gorbachev described it. "Atheism took rather savage forms in our country," he lamented.

Reagan's role in the collapse of the Soviet Union is undeniable, but there are still plenty of dead-enders out there, both in the media and the academy — those who say Soviet communism was bound to collapse in the late 1980s regardless of whether Reagan or some schlub was in the White House. Remember: Those on the Left hated Reagan with a passion, and they viewed him as a simpleton. One of those elitists even called him "an amiable dunce."

Reagan, of course, was anything but, and the vast body of his writings, many of which were made public only after his passing on June 5, 2004, make mincemeat out of such lazy characterizations. Reagan was a visionary. Which prompts a question: In all of recorded history, has there ever been a more wrongheaded and idiotic assessment of a man than the one uttered by Clark Clifford?

In conclusion, we might remember an old Soviet joke in which an exasperated dissident confesses, "In the Soviet Union, we know what the future holds. It's the past that's always changing."

Clearly, the same can be said for our hard-left, history-denying mainstream media


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #408 on: October 03, 2022, 04:44:32 PM »


The Underwater Cuban Missile Crisis at 60
Chief of Staff of 69th Submarine Brigade Arkhipov Implicitly Confirmed Near-use of Nuclear Torpedo at 1997 Conference
Submarine Commanders Suppressed Story for 40 Years
Archive Posts Core Declassified Records on Soviet Subs during Crisis

Washington, D.C., October 3, 2022 - Sixty years ago, on October 1, 1962, four Soviet Foxtrot-class diesel submarines, each of which carried one nuclear-armed torpedo, left their base in the Kola Bay, part of the massive Soviet deployment to Cuba that precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis. An incident occurred on one of the submarines, B-59, when its captain, Valentin Savitsky, came close to using his nuclear torpedo. Although the Americans weren’t even aware of it at the time, it happened on the most dangerous day of the crisis, October 27. The episode has since become a focus of public debate about the dangers of nuclear weapons and has inspired many sensationalist accounts.

Today, the Archive marks the 60th anniversary of the underwater Cuban Missile Crisis by publishing for the first time in English the only public recollection of Vasily Arkhipov, the submarine brigade’s chief of staff, who was on board B-59 at the critical moment and helped Captain Savitsky avoid making the potentially catastrophic decision to launch a nuclear attack. Arkhipov shared his memories of the incident during a presentation at a conference to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis held in Moscow on October 14, 1997.

In addition to Savitsky’s recollections, today’s posting also features a core collection of previously published records on the underwater Cuban Missile Crisis based on 20 years of research by the National Security Archive.

=====================

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2022-10-03/soviet-submarines-nuclear-torpedoes-cuban-missile-crisis?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=333bc70e-e70a-4ed6-8501-b06f3709b197

Fascinating!

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #409 on: October 04, 2022, 08:46:23 AM »
I didn't know about the "62 incident "

with the nuclear torpedo

this one too
involving the submarine missile :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Jim Bowie
« Reply #410 on: October 04, 2022, 11:15:13 AM »
was one tough dude :

long before the Alamo

read about the Sandbar brawl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbar_Fight

I didn't know David Robert Jones took the name 'Bowie' from Jim Bowie the knife fighter  :-o

from wikipedia :

"Rock star David Bowie, who was born David Robert Hayward-Jones, adopted the folk legend's surname. Jones changed his last name in the 1960s because he feared confusion with Davy Jones, a member of the already famous The Monkees. He chose the Bowie eponym because he admired James Bowie and the Bowie knife, although his pronunciation uses the BOH-ee (/ˈboʊi/) variant.[123]"

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #414 on: October 06, 2022, 07:21:58 AM »
Not clear on your point with the last clip.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
40 acres and a mule
« Reply #417 on: October 06, 2022, 10:13:15 AM »
great history article explaining the behind the scenes evolution and dissolution of the executive order

passed by Lincoln only to be reversed by Andy Johnson

I did not know all these details

I recall quit distinctly my 6 th grade teacher who gave lectures on the Civil War mentioning this

He recalled the movie "Gone with Wind " for the great scene of all the wounded Confederates 
with a panning out of the camera till seen with image of tattered flag and the thousands of wounded

He also recalled the scene in which the Black man says '40 acres and a mule'

He was the very best teacher I ever had
to think that 45 yrs after his lectures I still remember like yesterday

I read he was murdered in the Philippines
 I never got the chance to thank him for how much I learned that yr from him
RIP

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
The Jeffersonians
« Reply #418 on: December 15, 2022, 09:12:02 AM »
BOOKS & ARTSBOOKSBOOKSHELF
‘The Jeffersonians’ Review: Virginia Dynasty
Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, our third, fourth and fifth presidents, were friends, allies and neighbors in the Virginia Piedmont.

Charlottesville, Va.
PHOTO: ALAMY
By David O. Stewart
Dec. 14, 2022 5:37 pm ET


Of the 45 American presidents, 11 have been part of what might be called a presidential cluster—individuals connected in some surprising fashion. Eight of these have shared family connections: the Adamses, the Harrisons, the Roosevelts and the Bushes. The largest cluster, however, involved no family ties, but lifelong connections that were temporal, geographic, political and personal.

In “The Jeffersonians: The Visionary Presidencies of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe,” Kevin Gutzman examines our third, fourth and fifth presidents, who dominated American politics in the early 19th century. They were friends, political allies and neighbors, spending much of their lives within 30 miles of each other in Virginia’s Piedmont.

Their talents varied. Thomas Jefferson, who served from 1801 to 1809, tended to the visionary. He was a master of the written word and an artist in political theater, greeting stuffy diplomats in dressing gown and slippers. James Madison (1809-17), small, bookish and prone to ill health, had a relentlessly analytical mind, a gift for legislative maneuvering, and was easy to miss in large gatherings. The physically vigorous James Monroe (1817-25) was the only one to serve in the Continental Army. Having read law in Jefferson’s office, he took the older man as his mentor, but could be rivalrous with Madison. Mr. Gutzman, a professor of history at Western Connecticut State University, is a veteran biographer whose subjects have included Jefferson and Madison. He has an eye for detail and a firm grasp of his period. Yet “The Jeffersonians” is less a group biography of these pivotal and interconnected figures than a straightforward chronicle of three consequential presidencies.


Jefferson, leader of the Republicans, did not coast into the presidency. After losing to Federalist John Adams in 1796, he narrowly won their rematch four years later. Owing to a poorly designed electoral system that was soon changed, he finished in a tie with his supposed running mate, Aaron Burr, which the House of Representatives resolved after 35 deadlocked ballots. As chief executive, Jefferson aimed to eliminate the national debt, slash the military, empower the states and ignore financial markets. Despite his small-government views, he grabbed France’s Louisiana Territory when Napoleon offered it, doubling the nation’s lands and necessarily increasing the government’s scope. Europe’s Napoleonic Wars prompted Britain and France to feast on neutral America’s shipping and sailors. With only a palsied navy, Jefferson responded with an embargo on foreign trade that hurt Americans while disturbing France and Britain very little.


Madison followed Jeffersonian orthodoxy, which meant three more years of ineffective tinkering with trade policies. Finally concluding that British depredations on the high seas required armed response, he turned to an utterly unprepared military in 1812. New England leaders opposed “Mr. Madison’s War” so passionately that some refused to summon their militias to defend the nation. With little help from that quarter, the blundering, sometimes heroic American effort stumbled into a lucky draw with the war-weary British.

Madison’s retirement opened the White House door for Monroe, his secretary of state and sometime secretary of war, who recorded a thumping 183-34 electoral victory over Rufus King, the last Federalist nominee for president. Following George Washington’s example, Monroe undertook three grueling nationwide journeys, a populist gesture that the cerebral Jefferson and Madison never considered. Asked if ceremonies and public acclaim wearied him, Monroe answered disarmingly: “Oh no—a little flattery will support a man through great fatigue.”

Monroe recognized that his party’s old policies would not answer the growing nation’s needs; Madison and Jefferson, from retirement, agreed. The times called for a viable military, a restored Bank of the United States, and federal spending on national infrastructure. Monroe retained the ideal of limited state power, but Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court weakened that principle in rulings that infuriated Jeffersonians.


Monroe’s main challenge came with the nation’s first great debates over slavery. In 1819 Congress wrestled with whether Missouri, if granted statehood, could authorize slave-owning. A compromise allowed slavery in Missouri but banned it in future northern states.

Monroe won his second term with but a single dissenting electoral vote, nearly matching George Washington’s unanimous presidential victories. Mr. Gutzman reports that the voters were so quiescent that year that barely 10% of the electorate cast ballots. Had the Jeffersonians produced an Elysian era of political consensus and social rest?

Not for long. In 1824, voters split among four competing presidential candidates. Massachusetts’ John Quincy Adams won (again in the House of Representatives) while supporters of Tennessee’s Andrew Jackson denounced the “corrupt bargain.” Jackson beat Adams four years later in a confrontation that resembled the old Republican/Federalist contests, as would the coming elections between the new Whig party and the Democrats (formerly called Republicans). Slavery, like any national crime, continued to fester and divide Americans.

“The Jeffersonians” largely avoids pronouncements about the grand sweep of history, though it challenges some prevailing notions. Mr. Gutzman suggests, for example, that the “bombastically partisan” Justice Samuel Chase, a self-dealing Federalist from Maryland, should have been removed from office after his 1805 impeachment trial, and that then-Secretary of War John Armstrong performed at least acceptably during Britain’s 1814 burning of Washington, D.C. (Responsibility for Armstrong’s shortcomings, argues Mr. Gutzman, “ultimately lay with Madison.”) The text includes long passages from the three presidents’ papers, composed in an era when leaders often wrote their own words. Jefferson’s prose sparkles and persuades; Madison’s can stride into vexing complexity, producing sentences reluctant to end. Monroe’s workmanlike documents, like his leadership, offer relief if not enchantment.

John Adams made that point when the last of the Jeffersonians assumed the presidency: “His plain manner will please in general.” So, for readers of history, will Mr. Gutzman’s.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: American History, Coolidge
« Reply #420 on: February 20, 2023, 10:08:14 AM »
Paul Mirengoff at Substance:
(formerly of powerline)

"The U.S. came out of World War I with massive problems. The economy fell into a deep recession. According to one speaker (or at least my notes), unemployment rose to more than 10 percent, GDP fell by 15 percent, and the Dow Jones average dropped more than 30 percent.

Race relations were terrible. Blacks suffered due to Woodrow Wilson’s rollback of civil rights. Lynching and race riots — usually in the form of whites attacking blacks — were not uncommon.

Revolutionary sentiment, inspired by the the success of the Bolsheviks, was in the air. Labor unrest and work stoppages were the order of the day. And, to top it all off, the country was experiencing a pandemic worse than the one we recently came out of.

The Harding-Coolidge administration addressed the nation’s economic woes by cutting both taxes and spending. It also established the Bureau of the Budget to keep close tabs on federal spending.

Facing resistance from Democrats and progressive Republicans led by Sen. La Follette, the administration was able, initially, to reduce the top tax rate only from the low 70s to a little more than 50 percent. After Coolidge was elected in 1924, Republicans eventually got it down to around 25 percent. But even with the more modest cuts of the Harding years, together with the decrease in federal spending, the economy quickly came out of recession.

The Roaring 20s followed. They roared loudly enough that even with the sharp reductions in taxation, federal tax revenues increased during the decade (and the taxes paid by the bottom 10 percent decreased as a percentage of all taxes paid). Car ownership became the rule not the exception. So did electrification. This was a period of unprecedented prosperity.

The boom of the 1920s ended seven or eight years after it began, which is normal. The stock market underwent a huge correction and panic ensued, which is also normal.

The response of the Hoover administration, and later that of FDR, was exactly the opposite of the Harding-Coolidge response. The government increased taxes, increased spending in the hope of stimulating the economy, and unlike Harding and Coolidge, pressured employers to keep wages high.

We all know the outcome. What might have been a very serious but fairly short-lived recession turned into a depression that plagued America for the better part of a decade.

The Harding-Coolidge era wasn’t just one of prosperity. It was also a time of improved, albeit unsatisfactory, race relations. The two presidents reversed both the tone and some policies of Wilson. Harding pushed for anti-lynching legislation, but racist Democrats blocked this effort."
------------------
(Doug)
Two periods of time. Two different sets of policies. Two different outcomes.

Lower tax rates and lighter government control lead to great prosperity.

And the opposite.  Leftist economic policies have lousy results - even when they're enacted by Republicans.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #421 on: February 21, 2023, 09:02:43 AM »
"Harding pushed for anti-lynching legislation, but racist Democrats blocked this effort."

Mark Levin had good point recently on podcast:

Democrats pushed racism against Blacks in the past
and now they push racism against whites.

some things never change



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
What a Glorious Morning This Is!
« Reply #425 on: April 19, 2023, 07:05:24 PM »
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/96663?mailing_id=7438&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.7438&utm_campaign=alexander&utm_content=body

Patriots’ Day — Hold the Line!
“What a glorious morning this is!”
MARK ALEXANDER


“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” —Samuel Adams (1776)

By the grace of God every day is a good day, but it is a great day when April 19th, Patriots’ Day, coincides with my Wednesday column. It is a pleasure to write about American Patriots from all generations, but especially those who fired the opening volleys for American Liberty in defiance of forces sent to disarm them.

Among our family’s hardheaded Appalachian ancestors was an early Patriot militia colonel, George Gillespie. In 1772, he arrived in the wild and largely uninhabited area of what was then western North Carolina, and over the next four years constructed Fort Gillespie at the mouth of Big Limestone River on the Nolichucky River. In October 1780, in a pivotal battle of the Revolutionary War, he and his sons joined others to form a gauntlet against British tyranny at the Battle of Kings Mountain on the North and South Carolina border. There, they killed Cornwallis’s campaign henchman, the infamously brutal Scotsman Major Patrick Ferguson.

That was but one of the 10 most critical engagements of the Revolutionary War. But it was the first battles of Lexington and Concord on which our quest for Liberty was launched.

Let’s take a brief stroll down the path that gave rise to our Republic.

On December 16th, 1773, “radicals” from Boston, members of a secret organization of American Patriots called the Sons of Liberty, boarded three East India Company ships and threw 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor.

This iconic event, in protest of oppressive British taxation and tyrannical rule, became known as the Boston Tea Party.

Resistance to the Crown had been mounting over enforcement of the 1764 Sugar Act, 1765 Stamp Act, and 1767 Townshend Act, which led to the Boston Massacre and gave rise to the slogan, “No taxation without representation.”

The 1773 Tea Act and resulting Tea Party protest galvanized the Colonial movement opposing British parliamentary acts, which violated the natural, charter, and constitutional rights of the colonists.

In response to the rebellion, the British enacted additional punitive measures, labeled the “Intolerable Acts,” in hopes of suppressing the burgeoning insurrection. Far from accomplishing their desired outcome, however, the Crown’s countermeasures led colonists to convene the First Continental Congress on September 5th, 1774, in Philadelphia.

By the spring of 1775, civil discontent with royal rulers was growing, and American Patriots in Massachusetts and other colonies were preparing to cast off their masters. The spirit of the coming revolution was captured in Patrick Henry’s impassioned “Give me Liberty or give me death” speech.

On the evening of April 18, 1775, General Thomas Gage, acting as the Crown’s military governor of Massachusetts, dispatched a force of 700 British Army regulars with secret orders. These troops, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were to arrest 53-year-old Boston Tea Party leader Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Provincial Congress President John Hancock, and merchant fleet owner Jeremiah Lee.

But what directly tied Gage’s orders to the later enumeration in our Constitution’s Second Amendment assurance of the innate “right to keep and bear arms” was the primary mission of his Redcoat brigades. They were charged with undertaking a preemptive raid to confiscate arms and ammunition stored by Massachusetts Patriots in the town of Concord.

Patriot militia and minutemen, under the leadership of the “radical” Sons of Liberty, anticipated this raid, and the confrontations with British regulars at Lexington and Concord proved to be the fuse that ignited the American Revolution.

Near midnight on April 18th, 41-year-old Paul Revere, who had arranged for advance warning of British movements, departed Charlestown (near Boston) for Lexington and Concord in order to warn Hancock, Adams, and other Sons of Liberty that the British Army was marching to arrest them and seize their weapons caches.

Revere’s ride was immortalized by noted poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow: “Listen my children and you shall hear of the midnight ride of Paul Revere… Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch… One if by land, two if by sea… Through the gloom and the light, The fate of a nation was riding that night; And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight.”

After meeting with Hancock and Adams in Lexington, Revere was captured, but his Patriot ally, Samuel Prescott, continued to Concord and warned militiamen along the way.

The Patriots in Lexington and Concord, with other citizen militias in New England, were bound by “minute man” oaths to “stand at a minute’s warning with arms and ammunition.” The oath of the Lexington militia read thus: “We trust in God that, should the state of our affairs require it, we shall be ready to sacrifice our estates and everything dear in life, yea, and life itself, in support of the common cause.”

In the early dawn of April 19th, their oaths would be tested with blood. Under the command of 46-year-old farmer and militia Captain John Parker, 77 militiamen assembled on the town green at Lexington, where they soon faced Smith’s overwhelming force of seasoned British regulars. Parker did not expect shots to be exchanged, but his orders were: “Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”


Within close musket range from the Patriots’ column, British Major John Pitcairn swung his sword and ordered, “Lay down your arms, you damned rebels!”

Not willing to sacrifice his small band of Patriots on the green, as Parker later wrote in a sworn deposition, “I immediately ordered our Militia to disperse, and not to fire.” But his Patriots did not lay down their arms. Then under Pitcairn’s orders, as Parker testified, “Immediately said Troops made their appearance and rushed furiously, fired upon, and killed eight of our Party without receiving any Provocation therefor from us.” Ten other Patriots were wounded.

As his militia moved toward Concord with the British in pursuit, their ranks grew to more than 400.

In Concord, the British divided in order to search for armament stores. Before noon, the second confrontation between regulars and militiamen occurred as 100 British light infantry from three companies faced the ranks of militia and minutemen at Concord’s Old North Bridge. From depositions on both sides, the British fired first, killing two and wounding four.

This time, however, the militia commander, Major John Buttrick, ordered, “Fire, for God’s sake, fellow soldiers, fire!”

And fire they did. The volley commenced with what poet Ralph Waldo Emerson later immortalized as “The Shot Heard Round the World.” With that shot, farmers, laborers, landowners, and statesmen alike brought upon themselves the sentence of death for treason. In the ensuing firefight, the British suffered heavy casualties. In discord, the Redcoats retreated to Concord proper and, after reinforcing their ranks, marched back toward Lexington.

During their retreat from Concord, British regulars took additional casualties in sporadic firefights. The most notable of those was an ambush by the reassembled ranks of John Parker’s militia, which became known as “Parker’s Revenge.” Despite reinforcements when they returned to Lexington, the King’s men were no match for the Patriot ranks. The militia and minutemen made the Redcoats pay dearly all along their 18-mile tactical retreat to Boston.

By day’s end, the Patriots suffered 49 killed, 39 wounded, and five missing. The British casualties totaled 73 killed, 174 wounded, and 26 missing.

Support and Defend Liberty!

Fellow Patriots, on this 248th Patriots Day, one of the most cost-effective ways you can extend the blessing of Liberty to the next generation is to support our *2023 Patriots Day Campaign! Please do so today!

Upon hearing of those first shots in what would become an eight-year struggle for American Liberty, Samuel Adams declared to fellow Patriot John Hancock, “What a glorious morning this is!”

Indeed it was, and the sunrise each April 19th has remained so ever since.


Thus began the great campaign to reject tyranny and embrace the challenge of securing individual Liberty. “The People alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it,” wrote Samuel Adams.

Moreover, as the first shots of the Revolutionary War were fired to repel forces sent to disarm the people, James Madison would later observe: “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any…”

Two months after the battles of Lexington and Concord, the Continental Congress, under President John Hancock, declared on June 12th, 1775: “Congress … considering the present critical, alarming and calamitous state … do earnestly recommend, that Thursday, the 12th of July next, be observed by the inhabitants of all the English Colonies on this Continent, as a Day of Public Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer, that we may with united hearts and voices, unfeignedly confess and deplore our many sins and offer up our joint supplications to the All-wise, Omnipotent and merciful Disposer of all Events, humbly beseeching Him to forgive our iniquities. … It is recommended to Christians of all denominations to assemble for public worship and to abstain from servile labor and recreations of said day.”

Why would the first generation of American Patriots forgo, in the inimitable words of Sam Adams, “the tranquility of servitude” for “the animating contest of freedom”?

The answer to that question — Liberty or Death — defined the spirit of American Patriotism then, as it defines the spirit of American Patriots today. We are the beneficiaries of generations who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor “to support and defend” Liberty as enumerated in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in our Constitution.

In 1776, George Washington wrote in his General Orders: “The time is now near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their houses and farms are to be pillaged and destroyed, and themselves consigned to a state of wretchedness from which no human efforts will deliver them. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army. Our cruel and unrelenting enemy leaves us only the choice of brave resistance, or the most abject submission. We have, therefore, to resolve to conquer or die.”

Of that resolve, two centuries later President Ronald Reagan said: “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation…”

Indeed, the time is always at hand when American Patriots must reaffirm whether we are to be freemen or slaves.

From the Revolutionary War forward, our family line has been represented well in the ranks of every major conflict — including in the last century the veterans who most influenced my life: my grandfather, who served as an early experimental naval aviator in World War I, and my father, who served as a naval aviator in World War II. Their legacy extends to our son, a Marine Infantry officer.

But our Patriot ancestors represent much more than a family line. Their legacy is just a small part of our shared national heritage and belongs to all of this generation’s American Patriots — those who defend Liberty whether their roots go back hundreds of years or less than a generation. That legacy is the foundation of the The Patriot Post, and our mission is to extend the endowment of American Liberty to the next generation from our editorial offices in the foothills of the Great State of Tennessee.

Patriots, through the trials we face now, stand firm and fast, and remember who YOU are, brothers and sisters — who WE are together. As Washington declared, “Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!”

Finally, in the words of Thomas Jefferson in his “Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms” in July 1775, “Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us.”

Fellow Patriots, on this day, and every day of the year, hold the Line! And on this 248th Patriots Day, one of the most cost-effective ways you can extend the blessing of Liberty to the next generation is to support our *2023 Patriots’ Day Campaign!

Support and Defend Liberty!

The Patriot Post is entirely funded by American Patriots like you. Please make your gift to our Patriots’ Day Campaign today to help ensure that our defense of Liberty remains strong, and the ranks of American Patriots continues to grow!

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776


Note: For a resource on our nation’s founding, read the Patriots Primer on American Liberty. You can also purchase our highly acclaimed pocket-size Patriot Primers in bulk for distribution to students, grassroots organizations, civic clubs, political gatherings, military and public service personnel, professional associations, and others.

For a scholarly assessment of the events leading up to and beyond the first shots fired at Lexington and Concord, the British gun control programs that precipitated the American Revolution, see my friend Dave Kopel’s post, “The American Revolution Against British Gun Control.”

Join us in prayer for our nation’s Military Patriots standing in harm’s way, for our First Responders, and for their families. Please lift up your Patriot team and our mission to support and defend our Republic’s Founding Principle of Liberty, in order to ignite the fires of freedom in the hearts and minds of our countrymen. Thank you for supporting our nation’s premier online journal of Liberty.

The Patriot Post and our Patriot Foundation Trust are proud sponsors of the National Medal of Honor Heritage Center, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, Folds of Honor, Honoring the Sacrifice, Warrior Freedom Service Dogs, Officer Christian Fellowship, the Air University Foundation, the Naval War College Foundation, and the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
On this date 1861 Maryland citizens attack federal troops
« Reply #426 on: April 22, 2023, 07:28:51 AM »


161 years ago today in 1861, the first bloodshed of the American Civil War occurs as citizens of Baltimore attack Federal troops in route to Washington D.C.

7 days earlier, in response to the Union attempting to resupply Fort Sumter, the Confederates bombarded the fortress for 32 hours until a truce was called. No causalities were sustained on either side, but Lincoln used this event to unilaterally summon an army of 75,000 men to bring the seceded states back into the Union. This action caused another wave of secession with 4 more states to take place and the border states of Maryland and Missouri to descend into violence.

Maryland surrounding the Federal capital was of crucial military importance with its railroads in Baltimore. The populace also had sympathies for their Southern neighbors. And with Federal “Bluecoats” in transit through their city, a stone throwing riot broke out on the previous night of April 18th. The Mayor of Baltimore wrote a letter urging Lincoln to stop sending troops through the city because the populace was angry over their upcoming deployment against their southern neighbors. However it was too late and another regiment of troops was already in route. The citizens of Baltimore noticed the Bluecoats gathering at the train station and attacked them with rocks and pistols. One trainload of soldiers was able to get away and arrived at its destination with smashed windows riddled with bullet holes. ,

The citizens now in frenzy, destroyed the railroad tracks with crowbars to prevent further troop movements. The next batch of soldiers would have to make the journey on foot through the city and the mob was waiting for them. A violent clash occurred in the urban landscape of Baltimore and the Federals sustained ~40 casualties while inflicting a few hundred on the rioters.

If Maryland chose to the leave the Union along with Virginia, the Federal capital would be surrounded by hostile states, so Lincoln would soon place Maryland under military occupation and martial law. With a large portion of the state having sympathy for the Southern cause, Lincoln would also unilaterally suspend Habeas Corpus in order to suppress political dissenters. He would arrest Maryland’s militia leaders, journalists, and state legislatures. Frank Key Howard the grandson of national anthem writer Francis Scott Key and editor of a Baltimore newspaper. the Daily Exchange, was one of the more prominent political prisoners.  Marylander and Supreme Court Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney ruled this imprisonment of political dissenters, legislators, and journalists as unconstitutional. However Lincoln would ignore the court’s complaints and imprison over 2000 citizens of Maryland.

“Maryland my Maryland” the official state song of Maryland to this date, has the following lyrics:

“Thou wilt not yield the Vandal toll,

Maryland!

Thou wilt not crook to his control,

Maryland!

She is not dead, nor deaf, nor dumb-

Huzza! she spurns the Northern scum!
She breathes! she burns! she'll come! she'll come!”
This date (April 19th) also marks the anniversary of the opening bloodshed of the American Revolution in 1775…and 86 years later America again was fermented with rebellion.
[Online References]
(http://www.historynet.com/baltimore-riot-of-1861.htm )
(https://www.history.com/this.../first-blood-in-the-civil-war )
(https://journals.psu.edu/phj/article/viewFile/22560/22329 )
Lincoln’s suspension of Habeus Corpus:
-(http://articles.baltimoresun.com/.../0111270102_1_habeas... )
-Lincoln’s arrest of Maryland’s legislators:
(http://teaching.msa.maryland.gov/.../000017/html/t17.html )
-Lincolns arrest of Francis Scott Key’s grandson:
(https://www.gilderlehrman.org/.../fourteen-months... )
-Lincoln Suppresses Journalism
(http://www.historynet.com/stop-the-presses-lincoln... )
(http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/.../americanjournalism/fall09.pdf )
Maryland my Maryland:
(http://msa.maryland.gov/.../html/symbols/lyricsco.html )
Authored by R.E. Foy

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
1778 John Paul Jones raids England
« Reply #427 on: April 22, 2023, 07:30:21 AM »
History Salvaged
April 22, 2022
  ·
On This Day - April 22, 1778 – Captain John Paul Jones of Ranger led landing party raid on Whitehaven, England.Whitehaven was an English seaport on the Irish Sea. The decision to raid it was not made because of its strategic value, for the ships in its harbor were mostly coastal fishing vessels, containing little of value to the English war cause. John Paul Jones’ original idea was to capture an important person in the course of the raid and hold the unfortunate prisoner hostage until the British ministry released American sailors from prison. By this time, the Revolutionary War had been going on for three years. Soldiers taken prisoner during land engagements were frequently exchanged as prisoners of war. But the English still treated anyone found on an American armed vessel as a pirate. This was a sore point with sailors in the Continental Navy, and especially with Jones. In addition, he may also have known that the British ministry intended to make the burning of American seaports part of its military policy. He chose Whitehall because it was the English seaport he knew best, having departed from there at age thirteen when he first went to sea and he later wrote that he fell in love with America at first sight.

Going ashore near daybreak, Jones and his men spiked the guns in the two batteries in Whitehaven Harbor, then proceeded to light a collier (coal ship) on fire. One of Jones’ crew, however-an Irishman who had enlisted only to get home-began shouting warnings and banging on the doors of citizens. Soon a crowd of townsfolk swarmed down to the water’s edge. Jones coolly posted sentinels until the collier was beyond rescue, but decided to abandon the 150 remaining vessels and return to, the Ranger, waiting offshore.

The destruction caused by the Whitehaven raid was paltry, but its effectiveness as propaganda was electrifying. No raid had been made on an English seaport since 1667, thanks to Britain’s dominance of the seas. Englishmen wondered uneasily where the mighty Royal Navy had been in Whitehaven’s time of need, and Jones appeared, not for the last time, in English newspapers as a swashbuckling pirate. The effects of the Continental Navy’s daring exploits upon English commerce helped arouse distaste among the British people for continuing the Revolutionary War.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
1836 Sam Houston captures Santa Ana
« Reply #428 on: April 22, 2023, 07:32:19 AM »
third

Rebel History
April 21, 2022
  ·
186 years ago today in 1836, Sam Houston captures Mexican dictator Antonio López de Santa Anna in the battle of San Jacinto. The battle concluded the Texas revolution and saw Texas become an independent nation for 9 years.
Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821 following a bloody 11-year revolution. American filibusters assisted the Mexicans in gaining independence from Spain and were eager for expansion. The new Mexican nation, bankrupt and desperate, liberalized their immigration policies and allowed a wave of American settlers to colonize one of their border states, Texas. The new Mexican nation ratified a constitution similar to the United States that created a federal republic of states. However over the course of 15 years, a general named Antonio López de Santa Anna would rise and centralize political power. His political changes would inspire several Mexican states to openly rebel against him which he would crush one by one.
The desire to become an independent state from Mexico and potentially join the United States was always a desire for the Anglo colonists in Texas. And Santa Anna’s centralization of political power would ignite Texans to be more defiant to Mexican authorities. The Texan rebels had achieved some moderate success early in their revolution; however Santa Anna mustered a large army and went north to deal with them. The previous month he massacred the garrison at the Alamo, taking out some of the rebel’s best leaders. Along with this he also executed over 300 Texans at the town of Goliad after they surrendered and were told they would be pardoned.
Sam Houston in charge of the small rebel army realized that Texas’s only chance at independence was to kill or capture Santa Anna. He continually maneuvered his army to avoid a decisive battle until this opportunity presented itself. His men eager for revenge on the Mexicans were close to mutiny, but Houston would get his chance when Santa Anna arrogantly set up camp before his entire army was united.
On the early morning of April 21st, the Texans around 900 men strong, moved out of the woods and deployed their battle line outside of the Mexican camp. The Texans were not a professional army and only one small regiment of men had matching uniforms. They had been in the field for 40 days and most of them were bearded and filthy. But they were eager for a fight and ready to avenge their slain comrades.
Sam Houston led the way on horseback as the whole line of men sprinted fanatically towards the enemy screaming "Remember the Alamo!" "Remember Goliad!" The Mexicans had noticed the Texans and had a barricade around their camp, but they let the rebels get too close and it was too late. The Texans discharged all their weapons in a single nearly point-blank volley that was devastating. They then wasted no time reloading their firearms and stormed over the barricade to engage the Mexicans in melee combat. Brutally swinging their rifles as clubs and cutting the Mexicans with knives and axes.
The fighting lasted just 18 minutes, however the Texans chased and massacred the fleeing Mexicans over the next few hours. Santa Anna was found hiding in a marsh and was brought to the wounded Sam Houston. Hundreds of Texans surrounded the two leaders screaming for his immediate execution, Santa Anna pleaded for his life and promised to make a deal with the Texans establishing their independence. Texas would become an independent state for 9 years before joining the United States in 1845.
[Online References]
(https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qes04 )
(http://www.history.com/this-day.../the-battle-of-san-jacinto )
(www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/batsanjacinto.htm )
[Audiobook Reference]
The Blood of Heroes: The 13-Day Struggle for the Alamo - and the Sacrifice That Forged a Nation
By: James Donovan
(https://www.audible.com/.../The-Blood-of.../B0081TGDCG )
Authored by R.E. Foy

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: 1836 Sam Houston captures Santa Ana
« Reply #429 on: April 22, 2023, 09:28:10 AM »
third

Rebel History
April 21, 2022
  ·
186 years ago today in 1836, Sam Houston captures Mexican dictator Antonio López de Santa Anna in the battle of San Jacinto. The battle concluded the Texas revolution and saw Texas become an independent nation for 9 years.
Mexico gained independence from Spain in 1821 following a bloody 11-year revolution. American filibusters assisted the Mexicans in gaining independence from Spain and were eager for expansion. The new Mexican nation, bankrupt and desperate, liberalized their immigration policies and allowed a wave of American settlers to colonize one of their border states, Texas. The new Mexican nation ratified a constitution similar to the United States that created a federal republic of states. However over the course of 15 years, a general named Antonio López de Santa Anna would rise and centralize political power. His political changes would inspire several Mexican states to openly rebel against him which he would crush one by one.
The desire to become an independent state from Mexico and potentially join the United States was always a desire for the Anglo colonists in Texas. And Santa Anna’s centralization of political power would ignite Texans to be more defiant to Mexican authorities. The Texan rebels had achieved some moderate success early in their revolution; however Santa Anna mustered a large army and went north to deal with them. The previous month he massacred the garrison at the Alamo, taking out some of the rebel’s best leaders. Along with this he also executed over 300 Texans at the town of Goliad after they surrendered and were told they would be pardoned.
Sam Houston in charge of the small rebel army realized that Texas’s only chance at independence was to kill or capture Santa Anna. He continually maneuvered his army to avoid a decisive battle until this opportunity presented itself. His men eager for revenge on the Mexicans were close to mutiny, but Houston would get his chance when Santa Anna arrogantly set up camp before his entire army was united.
On the early morning of April 21st, the Texans around 900 men strong, moved out of the woods and deployed their battle line outside of the Mexican camp. The Texans were not a professional army and only one small regiment of men had matching uniforms. They had been in the field for 40 days and most of them were bearded and filthy. But they were eager for a fight and ready to avenge their slain comrades.
Sam Houston led the way on horseback as the whole line of men sprinted fanatically towards the enemy screaming "Remember the Alamo!" "Remember Goliad!" The Mexicans had noticed the Texans and had a barricade around their camp, but they let the rebels get too close and it was too late. The Texans discharged all their weapons in a single nearly point-blank volley that was devastating. They then wasted no time reloading their firearms and stormed over the barricade to engage the Mexicans in melee combat. Brutally swinging their rifles as clubs and cutting the Mexicans with knives and axes.
The fighting lasted just 18 minutes, however the Texans chased and massacred the fleeing Mexicans over the next few hours. Santa Anna was found hiding in a marsh and was brought to the wounded Sam Houston. Hundreds of Texans surrounded the two leaders screaming for his immediate execution, Santa Anna pleaded for his life and promised to make a deal with the Texans establishing their independence. Texas would become an independent state for 9 years before joining the United States in 1845.
[Online References]
(https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qes04 )
(http://www.history.com/this-day.../the-battle-of-san-jacinto )
(www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/batsanjacinto.htm )
[Audiobook Reference]
The Blood of Heroes: The 13-Day Struggle for the Alamo - and the Sacrifice That Forged a Nation
By: James Donovan
(https://www.audible.com/.../The-Blood-of.../B0081TGDCG )
Authored by R.E. Foy


If Texas becomes independent again, that would be awesome.

https://tnm.me/texit/




ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18525
    • View Profile
The last Republican mayor of Chicago
« Reply #433 on: May 21, 2023, 01:09:35 PM »
but no less corrupt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hale_Thompson

1915-1923. and again 1927-1931

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: The last Republican mayor of Chicago
« Reply #434 on: May 21, 2023, 01:25:38 PM »
Good thing we'd never be foolish enough to elect a president from that pit of evil!


but no less corrupt:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hale_Thompson

1915-1923. and again 1927-1931


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
William Jennings Bryan
« Reply #436 on: June 17, 2023, 12:34:41 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Booker T. Washington speech recording
« Reply #437 on: June 17, 2023, 12:36:24 AM »
Moving CCP's post to here:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-rights-act/multimedia/booker-t-washington.html

recording made in 1908 of 1895 speech



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #440 on: June 20, 2023, 09:30:33 AM »
Rather graceless.  Enforcing the end of slavery was a fine achievement for America and its' leader in the effort, the Republican Party.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #441 on: June 20, 2023, 09:58:55 AM »
Rather graceless.  Enforcing the end of slavery was a fine achievement for America and its' leader in the effort, the Republican Party.

More endless pandering to the “We waz kangs/we waz slaves” narrative.

There is more slavery today than before the civil war, meanwhile those of us who actually work for a living have half our earnings confiscated at gunpoint by a illegitimate government to support the albatrosses around our necks.


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #442 on: June 20, 2023, 11:29:00 AM »
Rather graceless.  Enforcing the end of slavery was a fine achievement for America and its' leader in the effort, the Republican Party.

More endless pandering to the “We waz kangs/we waz slaves” narrative.

There is more slavery today than before the civil war, meanwhile those of us who actually work for a living have half our earnings confiscated at gunpoint by a illegitimate government to support the albatrosses around our necks.

https://twitter.com/RAZ0RFIST/status/1538843250215137281?lang=en

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #443 on: June 20, 2023, 01:23:18 PM »
Rather graceless.  Enforcing the end of slavery was a fine achievement for America and its' leader in the effort, the Republican Party.

More endless pandering to the “We waz kangs/we waz slaves” narrative.

There is more slavery today than before the civil war, meanwhile those of us who actually work for a living have half our earnings confiscated at gunpoint by a illegitimate government to support the albatrosses around our necks.

https://twitter.com/RAZ0RFIST/status/1538843250215137281?lang=en

https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1670846127359377445

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69443
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #444 on: June 21, 2023, 05:10:47 AM »
You are being lured into snapping at a baited hook.  Better to take the win:  Republicans ending slavery- Yay!

Of course, Dems try using the day in behalf of their racial Marxism!  Duh!  Take the win-- the Juneteenth celebrates those who ended slavery-- white northerners/Republicans.  Take the win!


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18276
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #445 on: June 21, 2023, 05:41:04 AM »
Yes. The ending of slavery in less than a  century (also) vindicated the Constitution.  Slavery wasn't ended from within, and there was no sign it would have ended if the south had started out as a separate country.

We have plenty of setbacks in this country, especially now. Celebrate the wins, big and small.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #446 on: June 21, 2023, 06:57:01 AM »
Yes. The ending of slavery in less than a  century (also) vindicated the Constitution.  Slavery wasn't ended from within, and there was no sign it would have ended if the south had started out as a separate country.

We have plenty of setbacks in this country, especially now. Celebrate the wins, big and small.

If you think "Juneteenth" is supposed to be anything but another mechanism for spurring anti-white hatred, you're kidding yourselves.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: American History
« Reply #447 on: June 21, 2023, 07:14:14 AM »
Yes. The ending of slavery in less than a  century (also) vindicated the Constitution.  Slavery wasn't ended from within, and there was no sign it would have ended if the south had started out as a separate country.

We have plenty of setbacks in this country, especially now. Celebrate the wins, big and small.

If you think "Juneteenth" is supposed to be anything but another mechanism for spurring anti-white hatred, you're kidding yourselves.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/06/hungry-teens-loot-mcdonalds-steal-cash-register-after/

"Teens"