MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 38 of 115 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37    38    39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )
Message
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 8:46:07 AM
On November 19, 1863, at the dedication of a military cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln delivers one of the most memorable speeches in American history. In fewer than 275 words, Lincoln brilliantly and movingly reminded a war-weary public why the Union had to fight, and win, the Civil War.



The Battle of Gettysburg, fought some four months earlier, was one of the single bloodiest battle of the Civil War. Over the course of three days, more than 45,000 men were killed, injured, captured or went missing. The battle also proved to be the turning point of the war: General Robert E. Lee’s defeat and retreat from Gettysburg marked the last Confederate invasion of Northern territory and the beginning of the Southern army’s ultimate decline.

Charged by Pennsylvania’s governor, Andrew Curtin, to care for the Gettysburg dead, an attorney named David Wills bought 17 acres of pasture to turn into a cemetery for the more than 7,500 who fell in battle. Wills invited Edward Everett, one of the most famous orators of the day, to deliver a speech at the cemetery’s dedication. Almost as an afterthought, Wills also sent a letter to Lincoln—just two weeks before the ceremony—requesting “a few appropriate remarks” to consecrate the grounds.



At the dedication, the crowd listened for two hours to Everett before Lincoln spoke. Lincoln’s address lasted just two or three minutes. The speech reflected his redefined belief that the Civil War was not just a fight to save the Union, but a struggle for freedom and equality for all, an idea Lincoln had not championed in the years leading up to the war. This was his stirring conclusion: “The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Reception of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address was initially mixed, divided strictly along partisan lines. Nevertheless, the “little speech,” as he later called it, is thought by many today to be the most eloquent articulation of the democratic vision ever written.

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. I

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
=================================================================================================================================================

Without any doubts, this was the greatest speech ever articulated which defines what a Democracy was all about.



Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 9:25:49 AM
Quote:
Moved from previous page, for new discussions!? Anyone??

George states,

Indeed and from what I can see, the declaration of each state as equal when it comes to passing legislation is problematic. Something like 44 million people are residing in 22 of the less populated states. So those 44 senate votes represent about 13% of the people in the country. That is far too much voting power vested in the smallest of states considering population only. And I haven't even addressed the fact that most of those unpopulated states represent conservative votes in the country. Correct? Tyranny of the minority. Is that better or worse than tyranny of the majority? I would say worse.

Interesting figures! Good points! Now however some how the houses reversed??

Checking 11-17 in history, hey MHO lets have some new posts from new topics! Anyone??

1558 Elizabeth I becomes Queen of England, How was she influential in the expansion of the British Empire!? What say you??

1800 1st session of Congress, did the Legislative Branch get more done back then?? Why does it always seem they the houses are at odds with each other? Comments, anyone??

1869 the Suez Canal opens, Did the British have control of it back then?? Anyone?

1871 the NRA comes to the forefront, what's their influence today?? Comments??

1887 Gen. Monty of GB was born! How did he win in N.Africa? Was he Britain's best General?? Anyone?

& 11-18 in history we see,

1863 Lincoln heads to Gettysburg as pointed out by NYG, to make his famous address speech! I visited the spot near the National Cemetery where he gave his speech! It felt erie, & moving! Anyone else get that feeling at Gettysburg!?? Something great happened there?? Comments?

1903 the US acquired a 10 mile wide strip to finish the Panama Canal! How did they manage this? Was the situation similar to the British, & the Suez Canal!? Can anyone compare the two??

1905 A leader from Denmark becomes the King of Norway!? How did this happen? Anyone?

1923, Alan Shepard becomes the 1st NASA astronaut in space was born! 1st dogs, the chimps, finally man?? Comments??

1978 the Rev. Jim Jones poison s his followers in Guyana! Another example of Religious extremists beliefs!? What say you? How could this happen? Sick??

Lots to discuss here!?
Regards, & carry on!
MD

2015 New Zealand Rugby star dies from a heart attack! Can someone post that pregame display that the New Zealand national team does?? Do you think it's intimidating?? What's the history behind it?? What say you??


Again today Lincoln did his Gettysburg Address, I thought so much of it I have used it as my permit ant saying! Having been to the National Cemetery there, It's a solemn site! Hard to believe it was judged a long partisan lines!??

2002 the US legislature, both houses approve a new cabinet post, the Department of Homeland security! Boy has the US needed it lately!? What say you?? Also does your country have anything similar??
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 9:50:46 AM
Recent scholarship shows where the platform was located adn the place where he stood.
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 9:55:24 AM

No Dave, more and more the US does not need a DHS that goes after parents at school board meetings...or that allows nearly 80 (so far) people on the terror watch list to cross into the US along our wide-ass open border...or allow tons of a drug that is killing over 100,000 American citizens each year(and growing larger).

No...we don`t need a DHS that bases it`s actions, or lack of actions, on political ideology and causes.

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 10:15:29 AM
Quote:
2002 the US legislature, both houses approve a new cabinet post, the Department of Homeland security! Boy has the US needed it lately!? What say you?? Also does your country have anything similar??
----------------------------------


MD, what is the mandate of DHS? The US seems to have a very large security apparatus with several agencies involved.

Canada is much smaller though we do have an agency called Public Safety Canada. As near as I can tell, it is supposed to co-ordinate efforts between other security agencies and review bodies.

As the co-ordinating agency, Public Safety Canada works with:

Canada Border Service Agency. (CBSA)
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
Correctional Service of Canada. (CSC)
Parole Board of Canada. (PBC)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (RCMP)

You probably believe that I knew this list just off the top of my head. Sorry to disappoint but my limited understanding was that CSIS investigated internal and external security threats while the RCMP enforced Canadian laws and maintained peace and order. The rest I had to look up.

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 10:26:38 AM
Quote:

No Dave, more and more the US does not need a DHS that goes after parents at school board meetings...or that allows nearly 80 (so far) people on the terror watch list to cross into the US along our wide-ass open border...or allow tons of a drug that is killing over 100,000 American citizens each year(and growing larger).

No...we don`t need a DHS that bases it`s actions, or lack of actions, on political ideology and causes.

Respects, Morris


Sorry...but this does NOT occur.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/oct/18/viral-image/no-parents-who-question-school-curriculums-havent-/

However, violent threats against civilians and board members, should be investigated.

Nice try .

Cheers, NYGiant
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 11:48:45 AM
Quote:
Quote:
2002 the US legislature, both houses approve a new cabinet post, the Department of Homeland security! Boy has the US needed it lately!? What say you?? Also does your country have anything similar??
----------------------------------


MD, what is the mandate of DHS? The US seems to have a very large security apparatus with several agencies involved.

Canada is much smaller though we do have an agency called Public Safety Canada. As near as I can tell, it is supposed to co-ordinate efforts between other security agencies and review bodies.

As the co-ordinating agency, Public Safety Canada works with:

Canada Border Service Agency. (CBSA)
Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
Correctional Service of Canada. (CSC)
Parole Board of Canada. (PBC)
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (RCMP)

You probably believe that I knew this list just off the top of my head. Sorry to disappoint but my limited understanding was that CSIS investigated internal and external security threats while the RCMP enforced Canadian laws and maintained peace and order. The rest I had to look up.

Cheers,

George



Hi George,

The Dept. of homeland security, as you say is a multifaceted branch dedicated to most areas of US security! It is the 3rd largest agency in the US, the fact that it passed through both areas of the legislature shows both political sides felt it necessary!

Stay safe!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 12:04:14 PM


Nice try yourself NYGiant!

It does occur, has occurred, and continues to occur. Homeland security is in charge of border security. and it`s director continually lies and says the US Southern border is secure...while record number of contacts, border crosser s, and record amounts of fentanyl enter the country and take more and more lives...not by overdose, but by poisoning.

Hardly the practice of any "homeland security."

Respects, Morris
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 5:03:20 PM
Quote:


I do know that the 1787 Congress also introduced the 3/5 compromise which was an acknowledgment of the institution of slavery, was it not?

George


Not only that George, but think if you had 500 slaves, you have 300 more votes your way!

Slaves are not going to vote opposite that of their master!?

They better not!!
What say you?
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 8:18:16 PM
The population count was to determine how many Representatives would be given to a state. The slaves did not vote. /clarification
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/19/2022 8:34:35 PM
Couple of days late on this. Mea culpa!: Quote:
1558 Elizabeth I becomes Queen of England, How was she influential in the expansion of the British Empire!? What say you?

I’ll go out on a limb and suggest she had much to to with the lead-up to England’s overseas expansion but little to do with the widespread exploitation that really only began after her death.

Elizabeth’s major issues, almost from the day of her proclamation, were euro-centred. She attained the throne on the death of Mary, her half-sister. Mary was Catholic and married to Phillip II of Spain. She made the focus of her reign the reversal of the heresies of her father, Henry VIII. In doing so, she was opposed where possible by Parliament, but during her five-year reign her assaults on members of the reformist groups in England (I believe she had some 250 humans burned as heretics) she earned the sobriquet “Bloody Mary”. She died – childless, on 17 Nov 1558.

Elizabeth inherited both the religious turmoil her sister had introduced to the kingdom and, IIRC, an on-going relative penury caused largely by her father’s extravagance. By reinstating the Church of England, she was declared heretic and excommunicated; she also made her nation a target of powerful Catholic nations of Europe (think France and Spain). As a reformist, however, she gained support from many of the reformist northern European states, with whom trade and alliances grew.

To enhance the English coffers, she encouraged privateering against Spanish ships laden with the wealth of the New World. To halt the further expansion of Catholic nations in the largely still untouched North America, she funded settlements to the north of Spanish Florida. Much of this, I suggest, was not empire-building, but empire raiding and/or empire stopping. And some of it was very late in her reign.

There is, of course, the social and political impact of Philip II of Spain’s attempted invasion of England in 1588. I’m not convinced the destruction of the Armada was an English naval victory so much as a Spanish miscalculation. But at the time it was a sign from God supporting Elizabeth, a huge boost in English prestige in the courts of Europe, and incidentally a positive demonstration of new naval building designs which would allow England/Britain to build world-straddling, capably armed ships to expand its sphere of influence in the face of opposition. But much of that legacy played out after Elizabeth’s death in 1603.

Cheers,
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 7:18:12 AM
Twenty-four high-ranking Nazis go on trial in Nuremberg, Germany, for atrocities committed during World War II beginning on November 20, 1945.

The Nuremberg trials were conducted by an international tribunal made up of representatives from the United States, the Soviet Union, France and Great Britain. It was the first trial of its kind in history, and the defendants faced charges ranging from crimes against peace, to crimes of war, to crimes against humanity. Lord Justice Geoffrey Lawrence, the British member, presided over the proceedings, which lasted 10 months and consisted of 216 court sessions.

On October 1, 1946, 12 architects of Nazi policy were sentenced to death. Seven others were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 10 years to life, and three were acquitted. Of the original 24 defendants, one, Robert Ley, committed suicide while in prison, and another, Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, was deemed mentally and physically incompetent to stand trial. Among those condemned to death by hanging were Joachim von Ribbentrop, Nazi minister of foreign affairs; Heinrich Himmler, leader of the Gestapo; Alfred Jodl, head of the German armed forces staff; and Wilhelm Frick, minister of the interior.

On October 16, 1946, 10 of the architects of Nazi policy were hanged. Goering, who at sentencing was called the “leading war aggressor and creator of the oppressive program against the Jews,” committed suicide by poison on the eve of his scheduled execution. Nazi Party leader Martin Bormann was condemned to death in absentia (but is now believed to have died in May 1945). Trials of lesser German and Axis war criminals continued in Germany into the 1950s and resulted in the conviction of 5,025 other defendants and the execution of 806.​
====================================================================================================================================================

All these Nazis received a fairer trial than they gave the Poles and the Jews.
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 7:23:56 AM
Himmler, sentenced to death at Nuremberg ? He’d already killed himself the previous year in British custody.
Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 7:46:33 AM
Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels all committed suicide. However, that does not erase their complicity in the Holocaust.

Cheers, NYGiant
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 9:17:25 AM
' I do know that .....the 3/5 compromise ....was an acknowledgement of the institution of slavery, was it not?"

"if you had 500 slaves, you have 300 more votes your way..."

The 3/5ths compromise was put forward by anti-slavery forces who did not want the institution of slavery to grow across the land. Slave states wanted slaves to be considered as not being a person, but as property. But they then, hypocritically, wanted a full person counted in the census so that their representation in the congress would be enlarged. By getting them to agree to this compromise the slave states would be limited in the census numbers...less representatives, less votes in congress, less power to spread slavery to the territories.

It was done to prevent slave states from leaving ( which happened about 4 score later) and preserving the Union of states...while limiting the legislative power of slave states from what they would have been. Dave, was it better to own 500 slaves...all of whom were counted towards increasing slave state powers...or having only 300 counted as a way to limit the slave states powers?

It was an early means to attempt to eradicate slavery gradually, without breaking up a fragile alliance of free and slave states.

Respects, Morris

----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 9:29:30 AM
Quote:
Couple of days late on this. Mea culpa!: Quote:
1558 Elizabeth I becomes Queen of England, How was she influential in the expansion of the British Empire!? What say you?

I’ll go out on a limb and suggest she had much to to with the lead-up to England’s overseas expansion but little to do with the widespread exploitation that really only began after her death.

To enhance the English coffers, she encouraged privateering against Spanish ships laden with the wealth of the New World. To halt the further expansion of Catholic nations in the largely still untouched North America, she funded settlements to the north of Spanish Florida. Much of this, I suggest, was not empire-building, but empire raiding and/or empire stopping. And some of it was very late in her reign.

There is, of course, the social and political impact of Philip II of Spain’s attempted invasion of England in 1588. I’m not convinced the destruction of the Armada was an English naval victory so much as a Spanish miscalculation. But at the time it was a sign from God supporting Elizabeth, a huge boost in English prestige in the courts of Europe, and incidentally a positive demonstration of new naval building designs which would allow England/Britain to build world-straddling, capably armed ships to expand its sphere of influence in the face of opposition. But much of that legacy played out after Elizabeth’s death in 1603.

Cheers,
Brian G




Hi Brian,

Always good to hear from you! Good points, Elizabeth I was definitely a friend to English Piracy, knighting Pirates like Sir Francis Drake, she seemed to have it in for the Spanish!? Maybe it was the movies but my late mother, said she, Liz had a borderline romance with Sir Francis Drake, & maybe others!? She did expand the Empire through British sea power! & maybe exploitation occurs later? But that does speak well of how the Europeans, all of them, treated native peoples!? Why dogs, & cats, ( I remember your wonderful old cat.) They would have been more kinder to them natives!?? What say you?? Anyone?

Good post, got me thinking??
Cheers,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 9:52:14 AM
Looking at 11-19 & 11-20 A few new topics occur, any new points?? Anyone?

1794 SC Justice John Jay, makes a peace treaty with the British! Was it a fair treaty or exploitive? Comments?

1863 Lincoln at Gettysburg, was John Wilkes Booth there as well?? Anyone?

2017 Fruitcake murder, Charles Satan Manson dies in prison! What say you about this nut??

& today 11-20 in history,

1815 the Quadruple Alliance is formed did it stop Napoleon?? How?

1820 the US whaling ship Essex, sinks?? So was Moby Dick, Melville's novel based on facts?? Anyone??

1917 for the 1st time in warfare Tanks are used in the Battle of Cambria! Who & how were they developed? Were they very effective in WWI? Anyone, on Tanks, & the Battle of Cambria?? Tanks a lot!? ☺

1925 Robert Kennedy was born sadly assassination cut what might have been a future President, short! Comments?

1947 Queen Elizabeth II marries Louis Mountbatten, at West Minster Abbey! How did this marriage help Great Britain or was it bad for the country?? What say you??

1975 Spain's leader Francisco Franco dies, from a heart attack! Was he a good or evil leader? What was up with the pre WWII civil war in Spain? Why did other European leaders get involved? even Hitler? Can someone help us out??? Anyone?

1992 huge fire in Windsor Castle destroys 115+ rooms! How did this happen? & How was it restored? Anyone with a good website on it??

1998 American Tobacco companies are to pay out over 200 billion dollars!? Was this just??

Lots to discuss here! Please pitch in!!!!

Seize the day!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 9:56:55 AM
Quote:
' I do know that .....the 3/5 compromise ....was an acknowledgement of the institution of slavery, was it not?"

"if you had 500 slaves, you have 300 more votes your way..."
By getting them to agree to this compromise the slave states would be limited in the census numbers...less representatives, less votes in congress, less power to spread slavery to the territories.

WRONG!! The Three-Fifths Compromise greatly augmented southern political power. In the Continental Congress, where each state had an equal vote, there were only five states in which slavery was a major institution. Thus the southern states had about 38 percent of the seats in the Continental Congress. Because of the 1787 Three-Fifths Compromise, the southern states had nearly 45 percent of the seats in the first U.S. Congress, which took office in 1790.

It is ironic that it was a liberal northern delegate, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, who proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, as a way to gain southern support for a new framework of government. Southern states had wanted representation apportioned by population; after the Virginia Plan was rejected, the Three-Fifths Compromise seemed to guarantee that the South would be strongly represented in the House of Representatives and would have disproportionate power in electing Presidents.

Over the long term, the Three-Fifths Compromise did not work as the South anticipated. Since the northern states grew more rapidly than the South, by 1820, southern representation in the House had fallen to 42 percent. Nevertheless, from Jefferson's election as President in 1800 to the 1850s, the three-fifths rule would help to elect slaveholding Presidents. Southern political power increasingly depended on the Senate, the President, and the admission of new slaveholding states.

The 3/5ths Compromise was intended for the South to control all 3 branches of the US Government.


morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 10:32:09 AM
WRONG!!!! There NY, I used your insipid posting technique.

Had there not been a compromise on the numbers counted, then slave states would have had even MORE power....or....the union of states would have fallen apart totally.

Your analysis seems to be ignorant of the entire purpose of compromise. it was a "liberal northern delegate who proposed it. Do you think he, an anti-slavery person made the compromise offer to further the cause of slavery? Ridiculous!

The slave states agreed to the compromise thinking, short-term, but the long game was the intention...and that long game intent was to erode the power of the slave states.
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 10:50:10 AM
Quote:
WRONG!!!! There NY, I used your insipid posting technique.

Had there not been a compromise on the numbers counted, then slave states would have had even MORE power....or....the union of states would have fallen apart totally.

Your analysis seems to be ignorant of the entire purpose of compromise. it was a "liberal northern delegate who proposed it. Do you think he, an anti-slavery person made the compromise offer to further the cause of slavery? Ridiculous!

The slave states agreed to the compromise thinking, short-term, but the long game was the intention...and that long game intent was to erode the power of the slave states.


WRONG on all counts!!!

If there had not been a Compromise, there would never have been a United States as the South would have formed their own country. Southerners welcomed the Compromise because it gave them control of all 3 branches of Government.



Your analysis is simply wrong!!!! The South thought the Compromise would continue slavery. They never thought that there woujld ever be a regional political party that would erode their strength.

morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 11:34:09 AM
And your analysis is simple-minded!

You give the very reason for the compromise...but fail to realize the intent behind it in the first place. It was not offered by slave states...but by liberal free-state advocates.

"If there had been no compromise there would never had been a United States and the south would have formed their own country." That`s what I said!

Then you say that " The south thought the Compromise would continue slavery." There would never have been the compromise otherwise. But the 3/5ths Compromise was a poison pill. It was a way to erode the political and legislative power to spread slavery over time.

We wound up in a war 80 years later...because the south realized they had lost political and legislative power. They saw the results of having made a compromise that denied them 2/5ths of the census counts that also denied them more seats in the house. Those who proposed the compromise didn`t want it to come a war...they thought they would eventually legislate the end of slavery by denying it`s spread to new states and territories, but at the time, it bought us a country.

It was a brilliant political move...on par with Lincoln`s Emancipation Proclamation......which didn`t actually free any slaves because it only applied to states in rebellion...which, at the time were not under control of the Union. It was a political move designed to keep Europe out of a fight over slavery...and it worked. So did the 3/5ths Compromise.


----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
Phil Andrade
London  UK
Posts: 6507
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 11:45:21 AM
Quote:
Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels all committed suicide. However, that does not erase their complicity in the Holocaust.

Cheers, NYGiant


Your narrative was flawed.

You persistently remind us of “ pesky facts “.

Regards, Phil
----------------------------------
"Egad, sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox!" "That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." Earl of Sandwich and John Wilkes
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 12:55:04 PM
NYG,

HS Honors history class!? Honors!?

Oh honors!! Just messing with ya, ☺

but your New York Giants got ate up by my Detroit Lions 31-18??

What's up with that!?
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 1:08:11 PM
d
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 5:04:35 PM
You lack an understanding of the US Constitution and the 3/5ths clause.
1. The slave holding states had a greater representation in the House of Representatives than they were entitled to.
2. The slave holding states had more votes in the Electoral College.
3. The President decided on the judges nominated to the Supreme Court.

By getting more representation than they were entitled to, the South could always black anti-slavery legislation.

So, the 3/5ths clause did have influence on the Federal Government.

Realize that the South always insisted on a slave holding state be admired to the US when a freee state was added.

Nice try

Psst..BTW, Southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention rejoiced when offered the 3/5ths Compromise.

Cheers, NYGiant



NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 5:06:59 PM
Please explain to me how a discussion on a football team, belongs on a Military Forum Bulletin Board?

And, who said I was a fan of the NY Football Giants? The NY Giants were a baseball team I had my allegiance to.

Methinks thou assumeth too much!
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 5:16:20 PM
This is my last comment because this thread is not for extended posts.

So, if you were involved in the thing...then there would be no compromise. It would be all or nothing....meaning the South would take a walk rather than have no counting of slaves as their population. So, no US.

And THAT would be better to you, than a compromise which limits the counting...and limits the power derived from the decreased population count of slave states. And that ends or leads to the ending of slavery how? The slave states would form their own government with slavery intact for who knows how long. And the President and the SC would have no control or say over the secessionist states.

Brilliant!
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 5:30:33 PM
Quote:
This is my last comment because this thread is not for extended posts.

So, if you were involved in the thing...then there would be no compromise. It would be all or nothing....meaning the South would take a walk rather than have no counting of slaves as their population. So, no US.

And THAT would be better to you, than a compromise which limits the counting...and limits the power derived from the decreased population count of slave states. And that ends or leads to the ending of slavery how? The slave states would form their own government with slavery intact for who knows how long. And the President and the SC would have no control or say over the secessionist states.

Brilliant!


No...I don't say that. The FF wanted a United Colonies, and wanted the South in the nation. Hence the Compromise.

The slave-owning states wanted slaves to count as full persons for the purpose of deciding how many members of Congress each state would get. Of course, the slave owners weren't going to let the slaves vote.Northerners at the Constitutional Convention wanted slaves not to count as persons at all, because the Northerners didn't want the slave states to get all those seats in the House. Not all Northerners opposed slavery, but they opposed giving the South political power based on nonvoting slaves.

Northerners and Southerners voted for the compromise -- Northerners because they didn't want slaves to be persons, Southerners because they didn't want slaves to be nonpersons -- solely for the purpose of allocating power in Congress.

Anything else I can clear up for you?

Cheers,NYGiant


George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 5:31:10 PM
Quote:
1794 SC Justice John Jay, makes a peace treaty with the British! Was it a fair treaty or exploitive? Comments?


In the aftermath of the revolution there was a great deal of anger and suspicion between GB and the US. The Treaty of Paris of 1883 may have established the US as an independent nation but did not resolve a few issues surrounding trade and the British possession of forts to the south of the Great Lakes.

The French Revolution began in 1789 and spawned a number of wars and that included Britain vs France. The US had to decide which of the two it would support and George Washington and others felt that it would better to establish a fair trading relationship with Britain rather than lend support to France's desire to dominate the continent. The US also did not wish to go to war again and so soon against Britain.

The French were extremely angry that the US decided to treat with Great Britain. The French had been critical to the defeat of Britain in the revolution. The signing of the treaty would lead to French ships attacking US ships feeling that the US had abrogated its 1778 trade deal with France.

So the US sent John Jay to negotiate a trade deal with GB and to see that the Treaty of Paris was enforced. The result was the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation known in North America as Jay's Treaty which was signed in 1794. It was not very popular in the US as the US acquiesced to British demands that it would still stop US merchant ships sending goods to France.

The treaty did establish that the forts that Britain still held in the Ohio Valley would be abandoned by 1796. The British decided to stay in those forts because the US had not provided compensation to Loyalists for their losses during the revolution. Under the Treaty of Paris, the US was supposed to have done that. Not only did the British stay in the forts but they did attempt to fire up the First Nations in that territory to turn them against the Americans.

Of note, John Jay sympathized with the British failure to vacate the forts. He was a very honest man and acknowledged that the US had not fulfilled its duties to provide compensation under two articles of the Treaty of Paris and had failed to pay debts owed to British businessmen who had sold items to US concerns.

The US was granted, "favoured nation status" with respect to trade with GB. But the US was still restricted with respect to trade with British colonies in the West Indies. The US granted, "favoured nation status" to the GB.

Both nations would be able to navigate the Mississippi River.

Issues regarding the border with Canada and compensation for Loyalists were tabled and to be sent to arbitration. The boundary with Maine and the NE boundary between Maine and New Brunswick would be settled by arbitration. Debts owed by Britons to Americans would also be handled through arbitration.


Now at war with France, Britain was upset that the US, having paid off its debts to France, was selling war materiel to France. France just used the debt payment to buy the goods. Britain was also most concerned when John Jay intimated that the US was prepared to enter a coalition with other neutral states but in a condition of "armed neutrality". The British intimated in turn that the likelihood of them vacating the forts south of the Great Lakes became less probable should the US become embroiled in a situation of armed neutrality.

All in all, it wasn't a bad deal for the US. Jay did well despite being undermined by politicians at home. He avoided war which was the primary concern of his government and did receive some trade concessions though not all that he had wanted.

He did have to accept that Britain would stop merchant vessels to determine whether they were carrying goods bound for France. Jay agreed so long as Britain paid for any goods seized.
He failed to establish the rights of neutral vessels on the high seas.

Britain would also receive compensation from the US for losses suffered at the hands of French privateers who were outfitted in US ports.

The US wanted compensation for slaves that GB had transported out of the former colonies. That didn't happen.

Jay could not get the British to agree that they should not interfere in any way with Indians living in US territory. Britain was able to maintain its fur trade in those areas.

The treaty did not stop impressment by the RN.

Some historians feel that the US was taken for a ride. Others say that Jay saved them from another war with Britain.

Quote:
“The ratification of Jay’s Treaty,” wrote historian Richard Brookhiser, “assured that the country would not be tugged by sympathies with France into a showdown with Britain it could not afford.


Quote:
Historian Fergus M. Bordewich wrote that the Jay Treaty “staved off a war that the United States could not have won, and it allowed American shippers to take advantage of opportunities created by the conflict in Europe. ‘


So it was accept a treaty that proved to be beneficial to the US economy or go to war. John Jay chose peace.


The following article is a detailed description of the process by which this treaty was made and ratified. It has a good deal of information on the quality of man that John Jay was and also explains the bitter infighting within the US government that made Jay's negotiating position somewhat untenable.

From the Lehrman Institute

[Read More]

One last thing. Jay's Treaty did provide for the First Nations to ignore the international border when it came to crossing for work purposes. I believe that the US still allows Canadian FN's to cross provided they can prove that they are at least, 50% indigenous. The Canadian government does not reciprocate on this matter.

Cheers,

George
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 5:31:10 PM
double
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 6:00:40 PM
MD, you don’t have to make small errors to goad me into discussions.Quote:
1947 Queen Elizabeth II marries Louis Mountbatten, at West Minster Abbey! How did this marriage help Great Britain or was it bad for the country?

Elizabeth married Philip Mountbatten; Louis was, I believe, his grandfather on his mother’s side. He was largely educated in England, at Gordonstoun and the Royal Navy College.

Whether the marriage was good or bad for GB is a slightly surprising question, at least IMHO. It was not a marriage of dynasties, as were weddings slightly earlier. Neither Britain nor the Greeks or Danes gained anything through the marriage; in fact, Philip renounced all claims to the Danish and Greek thrones some months before he married Elizabeth. Consanguinity was a possible issue since they were distant cousins, but they were sufficiently distanced to remove that concern. The only other issues which may have been caused problems would have been his marital status or his religion. The former (marital status) had led to her uncle’s abdication in 1936; he refused to give up Wallis Simpson, an about-to-be twiced divorced woman. IIRC, the same issue was raised over the desire of Princess Margaret Rose’s desire to wed Peter Townsend, though I will admit that relies on ancient memory.

He was of noble birth. He was brave, serving in the RN from 1940 to the end of the war. He was handsome and, if not well-mannered, a person of some charm. She was, it has been said, smitten with him from their first meeting.

Through Elizabeth’s long reign, she was not always a popular monarch, and Philip was not always a crowd favourite either. But those are issues of popularity rather than impact on the nation.

I think they had a marriage which, publicly at least, was as successful as a marriage in the constant spotlight might be.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
morris crumley
Dunwoody GA USA
Posts: 3309
Joined: 2007
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 6:56:19 PM
No, NY....you didn`t even clear up your position.

Northerners voted for the compromise not because they didn`t want slaves to be persons...but because they didn`t want added power to the slave states. Slaves states wanted the slaves counted for the exact opposite reason. ....that, while they did not consider the slaves to be people, but property...they wanted them to be counted as persons for more political say.
----------------------------------
"You are a $70, red-wool, pure quill military genius, or the biggest damn fool in northern Mexico."
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 8:39:22 PM
WRONG again!! This time you are just paraphrasing what I said.



The slave-owning states wanted slaves to count as full persons for the purpose of deciding how many members of Congress each state would get. Of course, the slave owners weren't going to let the slaves vote.Northerners at the Constitutional Convention wanted slaves not to count as persons at all, because the Northerners didn't want the slave states to get all those seats in the House. Not all Northerners opposed slavery, but they opposed giving the South political power based on nonvoting slaves.

Northerners and Southerners voted for the compromise -- Northerners because they didn't want slaves to be persons, Southerners because they didn't want slaves to be nonpersons -- solely for the purpose of allocating power in Congress.

Nice try.

Cheers, NYGiant
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/20/2022 10:06:45 PM
Quote:
Please explain to me how a discussion on a football team, belongs on a Military Forum Bulletin Board?

We have had sports including Football, plus other laymans events, on this forum for years! Believe me its OK! Check this thread, its not all military history!? Shoot your talking politics right now!!??


In fact, today in history, 11-20-2022, the Toronto Argonauts defeated the Winnipeg Blue Bombers 24-23 to win the 109th Grey Cup! Perhaps George could post the NW Mounted Police, yeah the guys dressed in Red with the cool hats, brought the Grey Cup & presented it to the Argos!!!! It's history man! & if you saw these players fight, & the strategy used in the game you would swear it was a war!!!????

Congrats to the old city of York!
What a game! Anyone have highlights to post??
I hope there's no riots in Toronto!?

Cheers!
MD

A Free round of Canadian Brewskies on me for all MHO'ers at Yoders Pub!!!
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2022 12:03:35 AM
Quote:
1975 Spain's leader Francisco Franco dies, from a heart attack! Was he a good or evil leader? What was up with the pre WWII civil war in Spain? Why did other European leaders get involved? even Hitler? … Anyone?

Three questions:
1. What happened in Spain between the wars?
2. Was he a good leader?
3. Why did other European nations get involved?

Spain was, IIUC, a rigidly classed, stongly religious society from the time of Napoleon’s collapse. During the 19th century it relied heavily on its empire to function; with the decline/collapse of the Empire, it became a poor nation as well. An hereditary royalty, a pervasive Catholic structure and a wealthy nobility were supported by a loyalist army. Socialism and bolshevism were introduced as the poor gained elementary education skills, and a strong socialist party challenged the loyalist status quo, eventually gaining power in 1931.

From that time on, power would swing between Republicans and Monarchists/loyalists. There were, IIUC, no “nice” folks. Socialists (the force behind Spanish Republicanism) were intent on destroying traditional values; loyalists (supporting both Church and Monarchy status quo ante) were intent on fighting to maintain traditional ways. By 1936, a civil war broke out. At the time, Franco was commander of Spain’s African Colonial Army. His decision to support loyalist factions was perhaps moot to the cause, until first Mussolini and then Hitler offered both transportation and later military support. Soviet Russia was already providing arms and personnel to the Republicans.

In all cases, IIUC, there were some pressures on Spain to pay for assistance; I seem to remember this is why Franco’s African army was airlifted by German rather than Italian aircraft. It is also noteworthy that no western democracy offered official support to the Republicans, though certain nationals formed “brigades” offering Republican support.Whether they fought for socialism or against growing fascist values (Italian fascism, German nazism, Spanish falangism remains a subject of debate.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco, who would become the “leader for life” of the Falangist party/movement in Spain in the latter stages of the civil war, would become dictator of Spain from the end of the civil war in April 1939. During WW2, he repaid support he had received from Hitler and Mussolini by maintaining an axis-leaning neutrality but rejecting pressures to engage on behalf of the Axis. He would not commit troops to the conquest of Gibraltar, though Hitler requested it, but the so-called Blue Division of the Spanish Army served on the Eastern Front in the German assault on Russia.

I don’t know that there is anything good to say about Franco, at least as Caudillo of Spain. From 1939 to the time of his death, he ruled Spain widely and harshly. I spent some weeks in Spain in early 1960.The Spanish were a wonderful people who lived life to the fullest possible to them. But at any given moment – while sampling sherry in Jerez, or touring underground corridors in Cadiz, buying tickets to view flamenco – you were aware of the threats behind the rich culture. I remember sleeping with my car just outside Algeciras, and being awakened by a sub-machine gun in the ribs. The Guardia Civil wanted to check my papers, because I was too close to Gibraltar for their liking. For me, Franco’s Spain was a vast expansion of cultural awareness controlled by the distinctive Guardia Civil hat and the fire power represented by those sub-machine guns.

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2022 6:55:01 AM
In what proved a fateful decision on November 21, 1776, Continental Commander in Chief General George Washington writes to General Charles Lee in Westchester County, New York, to report the loss of Fort Lee, New Jersey, and to order Lee to bring his forces to New Jersey.

Lee wanted to stay in New York, so he dawdled in departing and crossing the small state of New Jersey to the Delaware River, where Washington impatiently awaited the arrival of his reinforcements. Lee, who took a commission in the British army upon finishing military school at age 12 and served in North America during the Seven Years’ War, felt slighted that the less experienced Washington had been given command of the Continental Army and showed no inclination to rush.

Famed for his temper and intemperance, the Mohawk had dubbed Lee “Boiling Water.” Lee was an adopted tribesman through his marriage to a Mohawk woman, but his union apparently failed to quell his interest in prostitutes. On December 13, Lee left his army, still dallying on its way to join Washington, and rode—with minimal guard–in search of female sociability at Widow White’s Tavern in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. It was there that British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton and the 16th Queen’s Light Dragoons captured him on the morning of December 15.



Former comrades in the British army, Tarleton and Lee were now captor and captive. After being disappointed in his efforts to secure a lucrative royal appointment, Lee had retired to the colonies in 1773 and quickly joined the Patriot cause. Tarleton had sworn in a London club that he would hunt down the traitor to the crown and relieve him of his head. Fortunately for Lee, Tarleton failed to keep his promise, although the vain general may well have preferred a quick end to the humiliation of being led from Widow White’s Tavern to New York City in his nightdress.

The British rejoiced at the capture of the Patriots’ best-trained commander, while Washington fruitlessly negotiated for his release. Meanwhile, Lee enjoyed his captivity, even drafting a battle plan for his captors from plush accommodations in which his personal servant maintained his three rooms and no doubt served his food and wine in a most civilized fashion. The British did not act upon his plan, and Lee reported to Valley Forge upon his release in May 1778. After a series of arguments with Washington, Lee was suspended from the army in December 1778 and dismissed in 1780.



George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2022 7:32:18 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Please explain to me how a discussion on a football team, belongs on a Military Forum Bulletin Board?

We have had sports including Football, plus other laymans events, on this forum for years! Believe me its OK! Check this thread, its not all military history!? Shoot your talking politics right now!!??


In fact, today in history, 11-20-2022, the Toronto Argonauts defeated the Winnipeg Blue Bombers 24-23 to win the 109th Grey Cup! Perhaps George could post the NW Mounted Police, yeah the guys dressed in Red with the cool hats, brought the Grey Cup & presented it to the Argos!!!! It's history man! & if you saw these players fight, & the strategy used in the game you would swear it was a war!!!????

Congrats to the old city of York!
What a game! Anyone have highlights to post??
I hope there's no riots in Toronto!?

Cheers!
MD

A Free round of Canadian Brewskies on me for all MHO'ers at Yoders Pub!!!



The 109th Grey Cup was won by the Argonauts. Good game though a bit of a defensive struggle in the first half. Each team had a field goal attempt blocked toward the end of the game. That's pretty unusual I think.

There won't be any riots in Toronto. The CFL has fallen on hard times in this big city which seems to think that the CFL is not worthy of respect. Poor advertising and the rise of the NFL as a much superior game has cost the Argos one or two generations of new fans. It's too bad. NFL players are better but the CFL brand of football and its rules make it a better spectacle.

At best there will be a presentation at city hall, outside in the huge public space surrounding it. But I don't think that there will be a victory parade as there would be insufficient numbers watching it. Just my guess.

George
Steve Clements
Toronto ON Canada
Posts: 910
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2022 9:26:24 AM
George,

As a “neutral” (I still remember the black day Sam Etcheverry and Hal Patterson were traded away…), I thought it was a pretty exciting game…especially the fourth quarter. Can’t remember the last time I saw a blocked field goal, let alone two, back to back-:)

Agree that there is a growing gap in the quality of the players in the two leagues….but the wide open CFL style is still lot of fun!

I read the Globe online every am. About six weeks ago, checked the sports section to see what the score of the previous night’s Argo game was. Couldn’t find anything…same for the next three regular season games. Not even a paragraph from the Globe (which is still a Toronto paper)!

So…no local support…and if course, many Torontonians think they are “above” the CFL-:).

Go to an Argo game in Toronto…and it is a bunch of old white guys. From Scarborough-:). And their wives have tattoos…. Go to a Raptor game, and despite the ridiculous ticket prices, those in attendance reflect the diversity of the city. And lots of young women wearing tight leather pants….

s.c.
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2022 10:11:16 AM
Quote:
George,

As a “neutral” (I still remember the black day Sam Etcheverry and Hal Patterson were traded away…), I thought it was a pretty exciting game…especially the fourth quarter. Can’t remember the last time I saw a blocked field goal, let alone two, back to back-:)

Agree that there is a growing gap in the quality of the players in the two leagues….but the wide open CFL style is still lot of fun!

I read the Globe online every am. About six weeks ago, checked the sports section to see what the score of the previous night’s Argo game was. Couldn’t find anything…same for the next three regular season games. Not even a paragraph from the Globe (which is still a Toronto paper)!

So…no local support…and if course, many Torontonians think they are “above” the CFL-:).

Go to an Argo game in Toronto…and it is a bunch of old white guys. From Scarborough-:). And their wives have tattoos…. Go to a Raptor game, and despite the ridiculous ticket prices, those in attendance reflect the diversity of the city. And lots of young women wearing tight leather pants….

s.c.



When they introduced the Argo defence last night, all 12 were black players from the US and Canada. Still the crowd did not reflect the diversity of the city. Too bad. I used to have season's tickets way back when the Argos played at Exhibition stadium in the early 70's. Joe Theismann, Bill Symons, Jim Corrigal, Mike Eben, Granny Liggins. The kicker was Zenon Andrusyshyn. Those were great days in that crummy stadium with the wind blowing in off the lake. My butt froze to those aluminum bench seats. Loved every minute of it.

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8310
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
11/21/2022 3:39:58 PM
Quote:
Quote:
1975 Spain's leader Francisco Franco dies, from a heart attack! Was he a good or evil leader? What was up with the pre WWII civil war in Spain? Why did other European leaders get involved? even Hitler? … Anyone?

Three questions:
1. What happened in Spain between the wars?
2. Was he a good leader?
3. Why did other European nations get involved?

Spain was, IIUC, a rigidly classed, stongly religious society from the time of Napoleon’s collapse. During the 19th century it relied heavily on its empire to function; with the decline/collapse of the Empire, it became a poor nation as well. An hereditary royalty, a pervasive Catholic structure and a wealthy nobility were supported by a loyalist army. Socialism and bolshevism were introduced as the poor gained elementary education skills, and a strong socialist party challenged the loyalist status quo, eventually gaining power in 1931.

From that time on, power would swing between Republicans and Monarchists/loyalists. There were, IIUC, no “nice” folks. Socialists (the force behind Spanish Republicanism) were intent on destroying traditional values; loyalists (supporting both Church and Monarchy status quo ante) were intent on fighting to maintain traditional ways. By 1936, a civil war broke out. At the time, Franco was commander of Spain’s African Colonial Army. His decision to support loyalist factions was perhaps moot to the cause, until first Mussolini and then Hitler offered both transportation and later military support. Soviet Russia was already providing arms and personnel to the Republicans.

In all cases, IIUC, there were some pressures on Spain to pay for assistance; I seem to remember this is why Franco’s African army was airlifted by German rather than Italian aircraft. It is also noteworthy that no western democracy offered official support to the Republicans, though certain nationals formed “brigades” offering Republican support.Whether they fought for socialism or against growing fascist values (Italian fascism, German nazism, Spanish falangism remains a subject of debate.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco, who would become the “leader for life” of the Falangist party/movement in Spain in the latter stages of the civil war, would become dictator of Spain from the end of the civil war in April 1939. During WW2, he repaid support he had received from Hitler and Mussolini by maintaining an axis-leaning neutrality but rejecting pressures to engage on behalf of the Axis. He would not commit troops to the conquest of Gibraltar, though Hitler requested it, but the so-called Blue Division of the Spanish Army served on the Eastern Front in the German assault on Russia.

I don’t know that there is anything good to say about Franco, at least as Caudillo of Spain. From 1939 to the time of his death, he ruled Spain widely and harshly. I spent some weeks in Spain in early 1960.The Spanish were a wonderful people who lived life to the fullest possible to them. But at any given moment – while sampling sherry in Jerez, or touring underground corridors in Cadiz, buying tickets to view flamenco – you were aware of the threats behind the rich culture. I remember sleeping with my car just outside Algeciras, and being awakened by a sub-machine gun in the ribs. The Guardia Civil wanted to check my papers, because I was too close to Gibraltar for their liking. For me, Franco’s Spain was a vast expansion of cultural awareness controlled by the distinctive Guardia Civil hat and the fire power represented by those sub-machine guns.

Cheers
Brian G



Hi Brian,

I never fully understood the Spanish Civil War, thanks for filling in the blanks! Everything you mentioned, makes sense! The last part involving the Guardia Civil acosting you had to be scary!? You ever think about writing a book on your life?? If Hemingway had heard your story, he would have wrote you into For whom the bell tolls!?

Thanks,& cheers!
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Page 38 of 115 (Page:  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37    38    39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115 )

© 2024 - MilitaryHistoryOnline.com LLC