MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE

User:  
Password:  
 
 General History
Page 45 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
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/17/2022 8:27:50 PM
Quote:
Here is a little tour video I hope might refresh your memory Brian, and Im familiar with Chelmsford many of my coworkers live there.

[Read More]

vpatrick


Thanks for the link, VP. I enjoyed watching, and of course I learned something. Let’s be honest: the “host” wasn’t very organized, and the events weren’t placed as well as could be in an historical context. But the presentation provides an interesting US perspective on an historical shared British/patriot event. What’s not to like about that?

I sense, I must say, that when we talk about “smuggling” we might be talking about different events, perhaps indulged in by different parties. And in a larger sense, I think we have to be careful with what we assign to what time period. Although EIC had access to China Tea through the International community in (?)Shanghai or through traders in Macau, it was only with the taking of Hong Kong that the British gained equal trade terms with China, and by that time EIC was losing ground to independent “traders”. That was 1841.

Just one other minor comment before I shut down this comment. Although there are issues which could be debated for a long time, I’m not going to argue about any nation’s colonial, imperial or economic structures.

That might sound a bit cryptic: sorry. I’m running out of energy and focus. Sorry

Cheers
Brian G
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/17/2022 8:50:46 PM
Quote:
Since he was the only one of 49 Americans to receive the death penalty, he was undoubtedly a scapegoat.


Nope. He was an example "pour encourager les autres" - to encourage the other soldiers AWOL to think about the possible consequences. Slovik was just unlucky enough to chose to desert and then get convicted at the wrong time...and his lifelong habit of poor decision making didn't help him any when he insisted on incriminating himself. Except for that he wouldn't have been executed, just like the 48 others weren't nor the hundreds - if not thousands - who functionally deserted but were allowed to return to service after a non-judicial disciplinary action. Those are the guys who in their "Record of Separation" have days deducted from their mustering out pay under AR-107.

Quote:
Slovik's criminal record made him classified as morally unfit for duty in the U.S. military (4-F).


Yes, until the regulations regarding physical and moral standards were relaxed.

Quote:
He should have never been drafted. Slovik's execution was an injustice in light of all the circumstances, and was an example of disparate treatment from a flawed process.


That is a moral argument and may be true but it is not a legal argument. Slovik was legally drafted.

Quote:
Slovak struggled in school, possibly due to instability at home and malnourishment. Malnutrition was a major reason for disqualifying young men for service before WW II.


No, the physical results of malnutrition was one of the reasons so many men were deferred from service...but again those strictures were eased in 1942 and 1943.

Quote:
For instance, he wasn't even represented by a military lawyer.


Really? Captain Edward Woods was a staff Judge Advocate.

Quote:
He was denied due process. He was denied rights guaranteed to any defendant. In other words, he never received a fair trial.


He was? Which ones? Despite that in every review by military courts the ruling and judgment were upheld. BTW, you do understand that a court martial and the Code of Military Justice are quite different from civilian courts?

Quote:
Every one deserves at least, a fair trial.


You haven't shown that he did not get one. His execution may have been "unfair" but arguably every execution is.

Quote:
Since January 31, 1945, no other American deserter has faced a firing squad.


And none before that since 1865. Your point is?
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
12/17/2022 9:40:27 PM
Quote:
Events for December 15-16 in history, A few of them anyway!? Comments?
Moved to new page, for continued discussions!????

12-15,

37 ce, Nero was born, the Emporer of Rome, who burned the city down! Was he Rome's worst ruler? What say you??

1791 the Bill of rights of the US Constitution were adopted! To day they are under attack? Should they remain as the law of the land? Or are some outdated?? Comments anyone??

1890 Sitting Bull, Souix cheif, is killed after seeking aslilum in Canada! What happened??

2011 the Iraqi War ends! Was it a just war? Did the US, & Allies win?? Comments??

12-16,

1631 the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in Italy kills 3,000+ people! How come they couldn't escape? Seems like a lot, when magma movement isn't that fast, is it?? Anyone?

1653 Oliver Cromwell takes over in England! What's his place in English History?? Why was there a rebellion (English Civil War) anyway? What say you?

1773 the Boston Tea Party happens! Did the Indian disguise fool the Brits.? What's up with the British I've of tea? Having a tea time every day? Did this event piss of the king? Comments? & again thanks guys!

1838 3,000 Zulu were killed in S.Africa battle, by the Voortrekkers! Who were they? & What was this Blood River battle? Why was it so one sided? & it's effect on the Zulu wars!? Anyone??

1944 the Battle of the Bulge begins! How did the US escape, & win this overwhelming at favorable odds for the Germans, battle? Something about Gen. Patton? & he did play a big roll in the victory!? What say you?? Thanks guys, all who responded!?

12-17

1903 the Wright Brother fly their first flight with their plane, at Kitty Hawk, NC., flying 120ft. In 12 seconds! They used bicycle technology, used aluminum for the engine! After that how did the airplane evolve, to be used as A weapon in WWI?? Comments, anyone??

Other new or old topics, sites, or posts!?

Lots to discuss!?
Regards,
MD



----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/17/2022 10:05:25 PM
Quote:
Patton's intelligence chief had more concerns regarding the Ardennes and warned Patton of the Germans perhaps launching a diversionary attack in the Ardennes. Patton asked that a plan be made just in case to meet any threat of enemy action in the Ardennes.


You have to be very careful of accepting much of the after-the-fact intelligence commentary about the Battle of the Bulge. No one one on the Allied side warned anyone of a the possibility of such an attack. Oscar Koch's Third Army G-2 Section warned of a possible counterattack between Aachen and Dueren, which could potentially isolate the VIII Corps, which is the actual reason Patton had his G-3 prepare to reinforce the TUSA flank. The mercurial Monk Dickson's First Army G-2 Section was worried about the same area. All of the stories about Dickson "slapping the map" on 10 December and exclaiming "it's the Ardennes" (before he then promptly goes off on leave to Paris) are postwar.

Royce Thompson, the extremely capable researcher for COMH, did a complete analysis of the army group, army, corps, and division G-2 reporting prior to 16 December 1944, which is virtually unknown today. It was classified SECRET until 2014 when it was released by NSA, although reference is made to it in Chapter XX, "The Winter Counteroffensives", in The Supreme Command, with all the BIGOT and ULTRA material and references carefully excised.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 6:25:17 AM
Civil War History.

Following its ratification by the requisite three-quarters of the states earlier in the month, the 13th Amendment is formally adopted into the U.S. Constitution, ensuring that “neither slavery nor involuntary servitude… shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Before the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln and other leaders of the anti-slavery Republican Party sought not to abolish slavery but merely to stop its extension into new territories and states in the American West. This policy was unacceptable to most Southern politicians, who believed that the growth of free states would turn the U.S. power structure irrevocably against them.

In November 1860, Lincoln’s election as president signaled the secession of seven Southern states and the formation of the Confederate States of America. Shortly after his inauguration in 1861, the Civil War began. Four more Southern states joined the Confederacy, while four border slave states in the upper South remained in the Union.



Lincoln, though he privately detested slavery, responded cautiously to the call by abolitionists for emancipation of all enslaved Americans after the outbreak of the Civil War. As the war dragged on, however, the Republican-dominated federal government began to realize the strategic advantages of emancipation: The liberation of enslaved people would weaken the Confederacy by depriving it of a major portion of its labor force, which would in turn strengthen the Union by producing an influx of manpower. With 11 Southern states seceded from the Union, there were few pro-slavery congressmen to stand in the way of such an action.

In 1862, Congress annulled the fugitive slave laws, prohibited slavery in the U.S. territories, and authorized Lincoln to employ formerly enslaved people in the army. Following the major Union victory at the Battle of Antietam in September, Lincoln issued a warning of his intent to issue an emancipation proclamation for all states still in rebellion on New Year’s Day.​

That day—January 1, 1863—President Lincoln formally issued the Emancipation Proclamation, calling on the Union army to liberate all enslaved people in states still in rebellion as “an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity.” These three million enslaved people were declared to be “then, thenceforward, and forever free.” The proclamation exempted the border states that remained in the Union and all or parts of three Confederate states controlled by the Union army.

The Emancipation Proclamation transformed the Civil War from a war against secession into a war for “a new birth of freedom,” as Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address in 1863. This ideological change discouraged the intervention of France or England on the Confederacy’s behalf and enabled the Union to enlist the 180,000 African American soldiers and sailors who volunteered to fight between January 1, 1863, and the conclusion of the war.



As the Confederacy staggered toward defeat, Lincoln realized that the Emancipation Proclamation, a war measure, might have little constitutional authority once the war was over. The Republican Party subsequently introduced the 13th Amendment into Congress, and in April 1864 the necessary two-thirds of the overwhelmingly Republican Senate passed the amendment. However, the House of Representatives, featuring a higher proportion of Democrats, did not pass the amendment by a two-thirds majority until January 1865, three months before Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox.

On December 2, 1865, Georgia became the 27th state to ratify the 13th Amendment, thus giving it the requisite three-fourths majority of states’ approval necessary to make it the law of the land. Congress required former Confederate state to ratify the amendment as a condition for re-admission into the Union. On December 18, the 13th Amendment was officially adopted into the Constitution—246 years after the first shipload of captive Africans landed at Jamestown, Virginia, and were bought as enslaved workers.

Slavery’s legacy and efforts to overcome it have remained central issues in U.S. society and politics, particularly during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ’60s.

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

And slavery's legacy is till with us today, as the right to vote has been threatened.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 6:25:40 AM
Also, slavery's legacy is the continued gerrymandering to suppress the minority vote in the US.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 7:30:24 AM
If there were no malnutrition, there would not be the physical manifestations of malnutrition. Thus malnutrition was the major reason why men failed the physical for induction.

Woods was an advisor. He was not a trained lawyer. You don't have to be a lawyer to be in the Judge Advocate Corps.

And since Woods was not a lawyer, and he was lead counsel , Slovik did not receive fair representation. Even the Nazis who murdered American POWs had lawyers.

Eisenhower signed off on the execution of Slovik...a soldier who had never been in combat, never was in the front lines, and never had the stress of being in the front lines, determines the fate of a man who was in combat.

Poor representation...the case should have been appealed to FDR.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 8:40:11 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Patton's intelligence chief had more concerns regarding the Ardennes and warned Patton of the Germans perhaps launching a diversionary attack in the Ardennes. Patton asked that a plan be made just in case to meet any threat of enemy action in the Ardennes.


You have to be very careful of accepting much of the after-the-fact intelligence commentary about the Battle of the Bulge. No one one on the Allied side warned anyone of a the possibility of such an attack. Oscar Koch's Third Army G-2 Section warned of a possible counterattack between Aachen and Dueren, which could potentially isolate the VIII Corps, which is the actual reason Patton had his G-3 prepare to reinforce the TUSA flank. The mercurial Monk Dickson's First Army G-2 Section was worried about the same area. All of the stories about Dickson "slapping the map" on 10 December and exclaiming "it's the Ardennes" (before he then promptly goes off on leave to Paris) are postwar.

Royce Thompson, the extremely capable researcher for COMH, did a complete analysis of the army group, army, corps, and division G-2 reporting prior to 16 December 1944, which is virtually unknown today. It was classified SECRET until 2014 when it was released by NSA, although reference is made to it in Chapter XX, "The Winter Counteroffensives", in The Supreme Command, with all the BIGOT and ULTRA material and references carefully excised.
\

I can agree with this.

Though the Allies were suffering from 'victory disease" and even Ike had a bet with Monty as to when the war would cease, I've always thought it was the Germans who camouflaged their intentions, rather than a failure of Allied intelligence.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 9:28:03 AM
A few topics we missed!

12-17-1874, WL Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada was born! Where did he rate as the head of state of the Great White North!? Maybe Canada's best PM!?? What say you??

1992 NAFTA was signed between US, Canada, & Mexico! Was this helpful, & fair to the Economies involved!?Comments??

12-17- 2014 the US & Cuba reestablish diplomatic relations again!? Would you say things are improving between the 2 countries?? Anyone?

& as mentioned, 12-18-1865, The 13th Amendment abolished Slavery in the US was it readily accepted by the South!?? What say you??

Just a few more topics!
Regards,
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
12/18/2022 9:37:08 AM
Quote:

& as mentioned, 12-18-1865, The 13th Amendment abolished Slavery in the US was it readily accepted by the South!?? What say you??



Only after the GOP abandoned the newly liberated Afro-Americans to win the White House in 1876, and after The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)were decided. These cases were a group of five landmark cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not empower Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals.

The Olde Confederacy found a new way, the Jim Crow Laws to keep Afro-Americans dis-enfarchised until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 3:45:48 PM
Quote:
If there were no malnutrition, there would not be the physical manifestations of malnutrition. Thus malnutrition was the major reason why men failed the physical for induction.


So? Slovik was not initially rejected for induction for physical grounds but for moral grounds. Both strictures were relaxed as manpower requirements for the war went up, which is why he was later inducted.

Quote:
Woods was an advisor. He was not a trained lawyer. You don't have to be a lawyer to be in the Judge Advocate Corps.


Really? To be an officer in the Judge Advocate Corps you do indeed need to be a lawyer - a graduate of an accredited law school and accepted before a State or Territorial Bar.

Quote:
And since Woods was not a lawyer, and he was lead counsel , Slovik did not receive fair representation.


Since Woods was a Judge Advocate, then he was a lawyer, whether or not that gave Slovik fair representation is a matter for courts to decide, which they have repeatedly but not in Slovik's favor.

Quote:
Even the Nazis who murdered American POWs had lawyers.


Indeed, officers of the Judge Advocate General Corps - like Woods.

Quote:
Eisenhower signed off on the execution of Slovik...a soldier who had never been in combat, never was in the front lines, and never had the stress of being in the front lines, determines the fate of a man who was in combat.


So what? Slovik was never in combat either so in that sense they were the same.

Quote:
Poor representation...the case should have been appealed to FDR.


Why?
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 3:49:15 PM
Quote:
I can agree with this.


Oh good.

Quote:
Though the Allies were suffering from 'victory disease" and even Ike had a bet with Monty as to when the war would cease, I've always thought it was the Germans who camouflaged their intentions, rather than a failure of Allied intelligence.


The problem was a failure of personalities in the army, army group, and theater intelligence organizations, coupled with an over-reliance on SIGINT over the other INTs. It was most certainly a failure of Allied intelligence.
DT509er
Santa Rosa CA USA
Posts: 1527
Joined: 2005
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 4:03:17 PM
Quote:
Quote:
I can agree with this.


Oh good.
Quote:
Though the Allies were suffering from 'victory disease" and even Ike had a bet with Monty as to when the war would cease, I've always thought it was the Germans who camouflaged their intentions, rather than a failure of Allied intelligence.


The problem was a failure of personalities in the army, army group, and theater intelligence organizations, coupled with an over-reliance on SIGINT over the other INTs. It was most certainly a failure of Allied intelligence.


Credit should be given as well to the German efforts of deceptive troop movements, changing unit designations and the limiting of plan distribution.

----------------------------------
"American parachutists-devils in baggy pants..." German officer, Italy 1944. “If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” Lord Ernest Rutherford
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 4:30:54 PM
Quote:
Quote:
If there were no malnutrition, there would not be the physical manifestations of malnutrition. Thus malnutrition was the major reason why men failed the physical for induction.


So? Slovik was not initially rejected for induction for physical grounds but for moral grounds. Both strictures were relaxed as manpower requirements for the war went up, which is why he was later inducted.

Quote:
Woods was an advisor. He was not a trained lawyer. You don't have to be a lawyer to be in the Judge Advocate Corps.


Really? To be an officer in the Judge Advocate Corps you do indeed need to be a lawyer - a graduate of an accredited law school and accepted before a State or Territorial Bar.

Quote:
And since Woods was not a lawyer, and he was lead counsel , Slovik did not receive fair representation.


Since Woods was a Judge Advocate, then he was a lawyer, whether or not that gave Slovik fair representation is a matter for courts to decide, which they have repeatedly but not in Slovik's favor.

Quote:
Even the Nazis who murdered American POWs had lawyers.


Indeed, officers of the Judge Advocate General Corps - like Woods.

Quote:
Eisenhower signed off on the execution of Slovik...a soldier who had never been in combat, never was in the front lines, and never had the stress of being in the front lines, determines the fate of a man who was in combat.


So what? Slovik was never in combat either so in that sense they were the same.

Quote:
Poor representation...the case should have been appealed to FDR.


Why?

This is the citation that I have been reading regarding Slovik's lawyer..."Slovik’s defense counsel, a young staff captain, was not an attorney, but he had served on previous courts-martial."
Source...https://www.americanheritage.com/example-private-slovik



So, unless you can show me a source that tells us what Law School Woods attended, I'll go with the lack of adequate representation . The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to have an attorney defend him or her at trial. That right is not dependent on the defendant's ability to pay an attorney; if a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the government is required to provide one.

Lack of representation as guaranteed by the US Constitution means that Slovik did not receive a fair trial.



And since the US Constitution is the Law of the Land, and it supersedes the Military Code, and since Slovik took an oath to protect and defend the Us Constitution, We ca go along with the tenets of the US Constitution.

Slovik did not have a lawyer defending him. He did not have adequate representation. In fact, since he didn't have a trained lawyer representing him, he had NO representation. He did not receive a fair trial.


While en route to his assigned unit near Elbeuf, France, Slovik and Private John Tankey, a friend he met at Fort Meade, took cover during an artillery attack. So, if he took cover during an artillery attack, he was in combat.

The nine staff officers who sentenced Slovik to death had never served in combat. Certainly NOT a jury of his peers.


You have greater access to this information that I do, soI will await your information regarding the Law School Captain Woods attended before the war.

RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 4:52:45 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I can agree with this.


Oh good.
Quote:
Though the Allies were suffering from 'victory disease" and even Ike had a bet with Monty as to when the war would cease, I've always thought it was the Germans who camouflaged their intentions, rather than a failure of Allied intelligence.


The problem was a failure of personalities in the army, army group, and theater intelligence organizations, coupled with an over-reliance on SIGINT over the other INTs. It was most certainly a failure of Allied intelligence.


Credit should be given as well to the German efforts of deceptive troop movements, changing unit designations and the limiting of plan distribution.



Yeah, except that didn't actually work.
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 5:05:17 PM
Quote:
This is the citation that I have been reading regarding Slovik's lawyer..."Slovik’s defense counsel, a young staff captain, was not an attorney, but he had served on previous courts-martial."
Source...https://www.americanheritage.com/example-private-slovik


If he wasn't a lawyer, but then acted as a lawyer at Slovik's court martial, then Wood's and the officers that appointed him, violated Army regulations and the case would have been thrown out. This was not a simple disciplinary hearing - a summary or special court - where any officer could be appointed an officer of the court and act as a "lawyer". It was a capital case. It wasn't thrown out and in review it was found that his representation was correct.

Quote:
So, unless you can show me a source that tells us what Law School Woods attended, I'll go with the lack of adequate representation . The Sixth Amendment guarantees a criminal defendant the right to have an attorney defend him or her at trial. That right is not dependent on the defendant's ability to pay an attorney; if a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the government is required to provide one.

Lack of representation as guaranteed by the US Constitution means that Slovik did not receive a fair trial.


And that guarantee also exists in the UCMJ. Slovik's conviction was not overturned due to inadequate representation.

Quote:
And since the US Constitution is the Law of the Land, and it supersedes the Military Code, and since Slovik took an oath to protect and defend the Us Constitution, We ca go along with the tenets of the US Constitution.


It doesn't supersede the UCMJ it is embodied in it. However, the legal procedures followed under the UCMJ do not follow the same rules as in civilian courts...but none of those procedural differences are violations of the Constitution, otherwise the SCOTUS would have ruled changes long ago.

Quote:
Slovik did not have a lawyer defending him. He did not have adequate representation. In fact, since he didn't have a trained lawyer representing him, he had NO representation. He did not receive a fair trial.


But if he didn't then his conviction would have been overturned - it wasn't.

Quote:
While en route to his assigned unit near Elbeuf, France, Slovik and Private John Tankey, a friend he met at Fort Meade, took cover during an artillery attack. So, if he took cover during an artillery attack, he was in combat.


Okay, if you say so.

Quote:
The nine staff officers who sentenced Slovik to death had never served in combat. Certainly NOT a jury of his peers.


How do you know that none of them ever experienced a single artillery attack and took cover?

Quote:
You have greater access to this information that I do, soI will await your information regarding the Law School Captain Woods attended before the war.


Okay.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 5:38:42 PM
If Slovik had had adequate representation, his case would have been referred to the Supreme Court. His "lawyer" didn't have the experience to make that appeal.


The 9 men who judged Slovik, their baptism of combat occurred after the trial.

All the lawyers who defended the Germans, it is public knowledge where they went to law school. Why can't we find where the lawyer who defended Slovak went law School?

Looks like Slovik never received a fair trial.

Understand....he may have still been found guilty. But the tenet of our judicial system is a defendant receives a fair trial. And Slovik didn't receive one.

Psst...neither did the Lincoln conspirators.

smile

RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 6:37:24 PM
Quote:
If Slovik had had adequate representation, his case would have been referred to the Supreme Court. His "lawyer" didn't have the experience to make that appeal.


Why? When has the Supreme Court ever listened to the outcome of courts martial? You may want to review Anna C. Henning, Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction Over Military Court Cases, CRS Report 7-5700, March 5, 2009. In any case, the conviction was reviewed, first by Cota, then by the Theater JAG, then by Eisenhower, then by a Board of Review, and then by the Assistant Theater JAG.

BTW, military courts are authorized by Article I of the Constitution.

Quote:
The 9 men who judged Slovik, their baptism of combat occurred after the trial.


Um, no that is a confusion of laymen reading military records. Slovik's court was comprised of nine staff officers rather than line officers of the 28th Infantry Division. Just because an officers is on the staff does not mean they didn't got shot at, especially staff officers in combat divisions in World War II.

Quote:
All the lawyers who defended the Germans, it is public knowledge where they went to law school. Why can't we find where the lawyer who defended Slovak went law School?


Don't know but it doesn't matter.

Quote:
Looks like Slovik never received a fair trial.


If you repeat it enough times it might magically come true, like wishing on a star.

Quote:
Understand....he may have still been found guilty. But the tenet of our judicial system is a defendant receives a fair trial. And Slovik didn't receive one.


If you repeat it enough times it might magically come true, like wishing on a star.

Quote:
Psst...neither did the Lincoln conspirators.


I'm not at all sure what that has to do with anything but sure whatever you happen to believe is true.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 6:58:11 PM
I can't find that Woods attended Law School and I have found that he was in business after the war, and was not practicing Law.

You have to wonder why the rush to judgement and that the trial was not know in the US til 1954 when Buie wrote the book, The Execution of Private Slovik.





RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 7:02:32 PM
My bad on one point.

I just realized I was working from the regulations in the 1948 Manual of Courts Martial, which required that defense counsel and presiding judge in a general court be lawyers. Until then the 1917 Manual applied, which did not require either the counsel or presiding judge be a lawyer (and it didn't actually require a presiding judge). However, it did require that at least one member of the court be a lawyer, typically a Staff Judge Advocate, and that they advise the rest of the court on legal matters. So Woods may not have been a lawyer. However that is still irrelevant given the Staff JAG was required to advise him - and by all accounts Woods did well. The real problem was that Slovik had no real defense. Quite a bit of detail on the Slovik case and the evolution of military justice in the US Army can be found in The Army lawyer : a History of the Judge Advocate General's Corps.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 7:07:59 PM
Quote:
My bad on one point.

I just realized I was working from the regulations in the 1948 Manual of Courts Martial, which required that defense counsel and presiding judge in a general court be lawyers. Until then the 1917 Manual applied, which did not require either the counsel or presiding judge be a lawyer (and it didn't actually require a presiding judge). However, it did require that at least one member of the court be a lawyer, typically a Staff Judge Advocate, and that they advise the rest of the court on legal matters. So Woods may not have been a lawyer. However that is still irrelevant given the Staff JAG was required to advise him - and by all accounts Woods did well. The real problem was that Slovik had no real defense. Quite a bit of detail on the Slovik case and the evolution of military justice in the US Army can be found in The Army lawyer : a History of the Judge Advocate General's Corps.


I figured you were using old information. I don't have access to what you have access to. Alas!

You comment verifies my comments though. Thank you!!

Chances are even if Slovik received a fair trail, chances are he still would have been convicted. It would have been nice though if the public had known about it back in the States. I just put a lot of emphasis on a fair trial.


RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 7:46:26 PM
Quote:

I figured you were using old information. I don't have access to what you have access to. Alas!

You comment verifies my comments though. Thank you!!


No, they don't but keep repeating them...

Quote:
Chances are even if Slovik received a fair trail, chances are he still would have been convicted. It would have been nice though if the public had known about it back in the States. I just put a lot of emphasis on a fair trial.


He did receive a fair trial. His mistake was in thinking he could get away with it.
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 7:55:22 PM
Quote:
Quote:

I figured you were using old information. I don't have access to what you have access to. Alas!

You comment verifies my comments though. Thank you!!


No, they don't but keep repeating them...
Quote:
Chances are even if Slovik received a fair trail, chances are he still would have been convicted. It would have been nice though if the public had known about it back in the States. I just put a lot of emphasis on a fair trial.


He did receive a fair trial. His mistake was in thinking he could get away with it.


Wrong!

You admitted you were using old information. I was knowledgable to do a search and show that a non-lawyer was Slovak's counsel.

And having a non-lawyer giving you advice is proof Slovak did not receive a fair trial.

"An hour and 40 minutes after the trial began, Slovik was sentenced to death by firing squad after a unanimous vote by the nine staff officers serving as judges. ...The nine staff officers who sentenced Slovik to death had never served in combat until weeks later when the Germans launched a massive counterattack in the Battle of the Bulge that overran the American lines. During that battle, Kimmelman witnessed "rampant" desertions among his own comrades and eventually surrendered to the Germans. The experience made Kimmelman regret the outcome of Slovik's trial. "Our lack of firsthand, close-up battle experience disqualified us as a jury of Slovik's peers," he said.

In retrospect, he also had second thoughts about Slovik's inexperienced defense counsel, which had no legal training, and didn't call witnesses to speak in Slovik's defense or question the psychiatrist's assessment of his client. "The legal inexperience of his defense counsel amounted to a failure to grant him the full benefit of his day in court," he said. "He did not receive a fair trial.""

https://www.businessinsider.com/eddie-slovik-was-last-deserter-executed-since-civil-war-2014-6

Pesky thing those pesky facts. Any lawyer can tell you that!....smile.

Actually a lawyer will tell you that if you don't have the facts, pound the law. If you don't have the law, pound the facts. If you don't have the law nor the facts, pound the table.
RichTO90
Bremerton WA USA
Posts: 712
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 8:42:32 PM
Quote:
Wrong!


Okay, I've tried to ignore your rudeness but won't put up with it any more. Be happy in the certainty of your self-acknowledged awesomeness. Bye!
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 9:26:29 PM
This day in 1879 saw the birth of Paul Klee in Switzerland, to a Swiss mother and German father. For those of you who don’t know him, he was a designer/lecturer/artist affiliated (from 1920) with Weimar’s “Bauhaus” during its premier years, leaving that institute for the Dusseldorf Academy.

Why mention his name here? Because the Bauhaus design values remain a force today. Because Walter Gropius, the founder of the Bauhaus, played a major role in American architecture. Because much of the Danis modern of the 1960-70s drew from the values of the Bauhaus.

In my 3 years in pre-architecture in the early 1960s, I faced a course in design based on Bauhaus principles, the first of which is “Form Follows Function.” The course text – to be honest, almost Bible – was by one of the Moholy-Nagy family, which like Kandinsky had a teacher at Bauhaus. The text was Vision in Motion; it was both a brilliant study of design and an anti-Nazi commentary.I guess I see Bauhaus values as a repudiation of German design of the Nazi period, but in thinking back I remember how strong “anti-nazi” bias was even as late as 1960.

Cheers,
Brian G

BTW: I have a number of reproductions of Klee, from different times in his career. IMHO, his “Ship – Entering Harbour” captures at least some of Klee’s unique artistic vision. But he painted a score of paintings with the same name, so I can’t peg down an image of it.

B
----------------------------------
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." Walt Kelly. "The Best Things in Life Aren't Things" Bumper sticker.
vpatrick
MA MA USA
Posts: 2522
Joined: 2020
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 9:51:23 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Here is a little tour video I hope might refresh your memory Brian, and Im familiar with Chelmsford many of my coworkers live there.

[Read More]

vpatrick


Thanks for the link, VP. I enjoyed watching, and of course I learned something. Let’s be honest: the “host” wasn’t very organized, and the events weren’t placed as well as could be in an historical context. But the presentation provides an interesting US perspective on an historical shared British/patriot event. What’s not to like about that?

I sense, I must say, that when we talk about “smuggling” we might be talking about different events, perhaps indulged in by different parties. And in a larger sense, I think we have to be careful with what we assign to what time period. Although EIC had access to China Tea through the International community in (?)Shanghai or through traders in Macau, it was only with the taking of Hong Kong that the British gained equal trade terms with China, and by that time EIC was losing ground to independent “traders”. That was 1841.

Just one other minor comment before I shut down this comment. Although there are issues which could be debated for a long time, I’m not going to argue about any nation’s colonial, imperial or economic structures.

That might sound a bit cryptic: sorry. I’m running out of energy and focus. Sorry

Cheers
Brian G


I think I got confused between George and Brian my apologies, both live on different coasts but sound similar at times, my bad. No offense intended.

vpatrick






----------------------------------
nuts
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
12/18/2022 10:30:10 PM
Quote:
12-17- 2014 the US & Cuba reestablish diplomatic relations again!? Would you say things are improving between the 2 countries?? Anyone?


Biden has removed some restrictions that were re-imposed by Trump, who attempted to undo Obama's initiative to improve US and Cuba relations. So under Biden, there has been an improvement in the Cuban Family Reunification Programme. The group travel programmes that had been cancelled by Trump have been reinstated. Travel to Cuba has become easier.

But, the US blockade or embargo continues to destroy the Cuban economy as it has since 1961. So it is still illegal for US businesses to do business in Cuba. The sanctions imposed make it difficult for Cuba to survive and so they continue to experience shortages of food products and medicines. But they persevere.

The US also passed the Helms-Burton Act which is considered illegal by most of the world. This act allows Americans to sue anyone who is making use of a property that they used to own but was nationalized during the revolution. This includes naturalized Americans who comprise mostly Cuban ex-pats or more likely, their children. So a Cuban who has been living in the US for 30 years and then takes out US citizenship is also eligible to sue a company or individual who is using a property formerly owned by them.

Canadian and European companies wishing to do business in Cuba may be the subject of a law suit launched in the US by any US citizens who claims to have owned a property in 1959. These properties could include old hotels, distilleries or factories.

The EU and Canada have both sought relief with the WTO. The EU has introduced "blocking legislation" that would allow a Euro company that has been sued by a US citizen who once owned property in Cuba to sue for compensation in EU courts. Canadian law allows for counter-suits against US citizens making these claims.

I think that it is time to cut a deal with the Cubans to allow them to provide compensation to people or more likely, their descendants who lost assets when Castro nationalized many business. Many other countries including mine have done this. It is true that Canada never broke off relations with Cuba and has experienced good relations with them. In the '90's the Cuban government compensated Canadians whose properties were expropriated during the revolution. So, it can be done.

Time to end the embargo and to see whether an unfettered Cuba can thrive and perhaps improve their situation with respect to civil liberties.

And if Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism then get them off the list. US intelligence services concur that Cuba is not a state sponsor of terrorism. That designation deprives Cuba of credit sources and financing. If the designation is untrue, then it has been applied as a further economic sanction. That is morally reprehensible.

Cheers,

George

NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/19/2022 6:16:39 AM
On this day in US History....

With the onset of the bitter winter cold, the Continental Army under General George Washington, still in the field, enters its winter camp at Valley Forge, 22 miles from British-occupied Philadelphia. Washington chose a site on the west bank of the Schuylkill River that could be effectively defended in the event of a British attack.​

During 1777, Patriot forces under General Washington suffered major defeats against the British at the battles of Brandywine and Germantown; Philadelphia, the capital of the United States, fell into British hands. The particularly severe winter of 1777-1778 proved to be a great trial for the American army, and of the 11,000 soldiers stationed at Valley Forge, hundreds died from disease. However, the suffering troops were held together by loyalty to the Patriot cause and to General Washington, who stayed with his men. As the winter stretched on, Prussian military adviser Frederick von Steuben kept the soldiers busy with drills and training in modern military strategy.

When Washington’s army marched out of Valley Forge on June 19, 1778, the men were better disciplined and stronger in spirit than when they had entered. Nine days later, they fought against the British under Lord Cornwallis at the Battle of Monmouth in New Jersey.

OpanaPointer
St. Louis MO USA
Posts: 1973
Joined: 2010
This day in World History! Continued
12/19/2022 8:40:50 AM
I had a neighbor who claimed that he had served with Washington at Valley Forge. "In a previous life of course." He frequented fortune tellers and "past lives" specialists.

He didn't remember many details and got the ones he did remember wrong.
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
12/19/2022 9:29:16 AM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's an interesting take on the Boston tea party living about 6 miles from where it happened I would love to see the look on the Tea Party's tour guides face if you asked that question during a tour.
Im sure the British East India company made the loss up in India or had insurance, hard to feel bad for that horrific company. While no expert on the British East India Company I would guess they were just a legalized smuggling operation.

vpatrick


Hi Vin, I already responded to your post once but it doesn't seem to be here. I think that sometimes I type a response and then forget to post it.

Anyway, I wanted to mention that when the English crown decided to colonize, it didn't have the money to finance these operations and came up with the idea to allow individual investors to take a risk to finance colonization, hoping for a return. So stocks were sold to a number of investors in what was called a joint-stock investment. These were like the precursors to large corporations.

I think that your state began the as self governing Massachusetts Bay Colony, I think.

The economic system that developed was British mercantilism that regulated the way that the colonies could trade. Goods had to be shipped to Britain where they could be taxed. It also meant that the colonies relied upon British imports for many of its needs. The British wanted the colonies to do well and that also protected the investment of the joint-stock groups that founded them. In some cases, if the colony was failing, the crown assumed governance of the colony. I think that that happened to Massachusetts Bay at one time.

The East India Company was important to the British because it governed the important colony in India. And when it began to fail, the British looked for ways to ensure solvency and figured that a tax on tea would be acceptable to the British colonists in North America. Now the EIC already had a monopoly on tea.

But smuggling by the 13 colonists had become a bit of a game. Many people did it and the British knew about it but had calculated that to stop the smuggling of cheaper goods into the 13 colonies would have been too costly. Many colonists were charged but many were acquitted too. And so regular runs to the Caribbean were made by expert smugglers in the colonies. They would pick up items like tea and molasses from the Dutch, sail home and off load on a deserted coastline.

Now I understand that the famous John Hancock was an outstanding smuggler of Dutch tea and molasses but he became most upset because the East India Company had found a way to undercut Hancock's originally lower priced Dutch tea. I understand that the Boston Tea Party is lauded as one of the first acts of defiance of British rule but I don't think that we should dismiss that the businessmen/smugglers among the Sons of Liberty were also upset that their sales of smuggled tea were disappearing.

And so they dumped the product of their rival, the EIC, into the sea. So was it taxation that was the egregious act or the fact that the smugglers could not sell their product?

The EIC is no candidate for sainthood. It obtained a lot of tea in China and smuggled in opium to pay for it. It used slave labour in India I believe. But it could govern a colony like India even if it had to ally with local rulers. That meant that the crown wasn't fully on the hook.


BTW Vin, I visited Boston when I was a young teenager and have not been back unfortunately. It was a great visit and I enjoyed the city. My relatives lived in Chelmsford. I do recall that the guides on all the tourist stops seemed to be college kids. They would give their presentations and then always reminded the audience that they were struggling college students and if we appreciated their work would we be so kind as to drop something into the box which was right beside the presenter. I remember asking my Dad whether they were working for free and relied on tips but he didn't know the answer. I don't think that the kids doing that sort of work up here would have been so bold. Perhaps times have changed. There was so much to see and do on the waterfront and other places in Massachusetts, but my memory has faded on most of it.

Cheers,

George




Hi Brian,

Let me just preface my comments by saying I welcome different views concerning the American Revolution I find them interesting, its always nice to get both sides of the story and just because I live in Boston does not mean Im still angry, my decedents were in Ireland at the time getting a hard time from the British in different ways, tea was the least of their concerns. Smuggling is a nefarious term, today it usually has something to do with drugs or guns, I would gather there are very few tea smugglers today. By todays terms someone who was trying procure a product and sell it cheaper than his competition would be considered a good businessman or even an entrepreneur. The British were enforcing a monopoly on its colonists there was no such thing as free trade in those days and it just wasn't tea, I can remember reading somewhere one of the things that stoked George Washington's revolutionary zeal was the fact he was forced to buy all of his mercantile goods from Britain and anything that could not be produced in the colonies and the goods were usually overpriced and of inferior quality. So I would just wonder is Smuggler or Smuggling to strong a term especially when living under unfair monopolistic trade practices?

Britain was clearly trying to enrich itself off of its colonies there was no altruistic intent for its expansion into India, China and the Americas. In fact the British plundered India and China using the British East India Company as one of its arms to do it. I would think they went a little easier on the 13 American colonies because they were British people living in them for the most part and I think Britain was shocked by the revolution because of this especially after fighting the French and Indian wars. British backers of the American Revolution like to point out that the greedy colonists(pot calling the Kettle?) owed them one by supporting the colonies during the French and Indian wars and should have been ok with paying higher taxes. I would just say that Britain was fighting that war not just to protect its colonists but further expand its empire they did enrich themselves by getting Canada and knocking the French out of North America, again I don't see any altruistic intent. I often wonder as I am fascinated with the Great estates in Great Britain where the homes of British aristocracy reside (some to this day) as to what proportion of wealth was plundered from India, China and its other colonies was used to build such great wealth and homes, was it entrepreneurial zeal or was it maniacal greed that raped ancient countries in disarray like China and India of its wealth and bounty? I would gather the answer is complex and somewhere in the middle. While my views are unsophisticated and that of a layman I wonder if they did give the American colonies representation in Parliament and treated them as British citizens if the revolution would have ever happened? Then the colonists would have been more content and equal partners in crime.

The colonization by the British and other European countries is a sad chapter in history it led to slavery and blind greed and even the US tried its hand at colonization after defeating the Spanish in the Spanish American war, taking over the Philippines, Puerto Rico and Cuba, even the country that didn't like colonization colonized.

Here is a little tour video I hope might refresh your memory Brian, and Im familiar with Chelmsford many of my coworkers live there.

[Read More]

vpatrick








Hi Vince,

I have seen the this history tour guide doing various videos from different historical locals, he certainly is enthusiast for American History, including the Civil War!

Thanks for sharing!
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: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
12/19/2022 9:44:50 AM
Quote:
A few topics we missed!

12-17-1874, WL Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada was born! Where did he rate as the head of state of the Great White North!? Maybe Canada's best PM!?? What say you??

1992 NAFTA was signed between US, Canada, & Mexico! Was this helpful, & fair to the Economies involved!?Comments??

12-17- 2014 the US & Cuba reestablish diplomatic relations again!? Would you say things are improving between the 2 countries?? Anyone?

& as mentioned, 12-18-1865, The 13th Amendment abolished Slavery in the US was it reeadily accepted by the South!?? What say you??

Just a few more topics!
Regards,
MD




On 12-19,,

1777 the Continental Army sintered at Valley Forge, this showed how the Patriots could stay the course even the toughest of times!? What say you?

1843 English Author, Charles Dickens published the classic, "A Christmas Carol," I have read it as well as watched most movie takes on it! It's kind of a tradition with me!? What is your favorite rendition on it? I like the 1938 version, with Reginald Owen as Scrooge! Although the 1984 take with George C Scott is not bad either!? BTW Happy Holidays! ☺

1966 the UN endorses the Outer Space Treaty! What was that all about? Anyone??

Carry on,
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: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
12/19/2022 9:50:36 AM
Quote:
This day in 1879 saw the birth of Paul Klee in Switzerland, to a Swiss mother and German father. For those of you who don’t know him, he was a designer/lecturer/artist affiliated (from 1920) with Weimar’s “Bauhaus” during its premier years, leaving that institute for the Dusseldorf Academy.

Why mention his name here? Because the Bauhaus design values remain a force today. Because Walter Gropius, the founder of the Bauhaus, played a major role in American architecture. Because much of the Danis modern of the 1960-70s drew from the values of the Bauhaus.

In my 3 years in pre-architecture in the early 1960s, I faced a course in design based on Bauhaus principles, the first of which is “Form Follows Function.” The course text – to be honest, almost Bible – was by one of the Moholy-Nagy family, which like Kandinsky had a teacher at Bauhaus. The text was Vision in Motion; it was both a brilliant study of design and an anti-Nazi commentary.I guess I see Bauhaus values as a repudiation of German design of the Nazi period, but in thinking back I remember how strong “anti-nazi” bias was even as late as 1960.

Cheers,
Brian G

BTW: I have a number of reproductions of Klee, from different times in his career. IMHO, his “Ship – Entering Harbour” captures at least some of Klee’s unique artistic vision. But he painted a score of paintings with the same name, so I can’t peg down an image of it.

B



Hi Brian,

As a Art Minor, I also enjoyed the works of Paul Klee, His boats series is excellent, with definite elements of Cubism, & Surreal expressionism! His use of bright colors are my favs.!

Thanks for bring Art Class back to me!

Cheers,
MD

PS hope your feeling much better!
----------------------------------
"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: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
12/19/2022 3:11:08 PM
Quote:
Quote:

& as mentioned, 12-18-1865, The 13th Amendment abolished Slavery in the US was it readily accepted by the South!?? What say you??



Only after the GOP abandoned the newly liberated Afro-Americans to win the White House in 1876, and after The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)were decided. These cases were a group of five landmark cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments did not empower Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals.

The Olde Confederacy found a new way, the Jim Crow Laws to keep Afro-Americans dis-enfarchised until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.



Even back then the Supreme Court did not protect the rights of most all Americans!?

& they call themselves "non-partisan!?

MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
12/19/2022 4:42:18 PM
Quote:
1992 NAFTA was signed between US, Canada, & Mexico! Was this helpful, & fair to the Economies involved!?Comments??


It depends upon whom you ask. If you were a worker in the manufacturing sector who lost his job when it moved to Mexico, then your opinion is negative.

However, the movement of manufacturing jobs to countries with workers that worked more cheaply was not solely because of NAFTA. Globalization was not forced by NAFTA.

On the other side, the lowering of tariffs between the three amigos opened up the market to increased exports. Canada is the number one export market for 30 US states and responsible for many jobs in those states. Under NAFTA the US has seen a tremendous increase in the export of services to Mexico and Canada. Canada receives 18% of all US exports and we are the #3 target for US agricultural products behind Mexico and China.

NAFTA did lower the prices on many goods that we like to buy. The economies of all three nations did grow under NAFTA.

While manufacturing jobs may have been lost, NAFTA saw an increase in other types of jobs associated with new exports. According to one US study, the new jobs paid 15-20% more than the manufacturing jobs that were lost.

And the manufacturing that we still do here, especially in the auto industry has seen a continent wide integration of that industry as all three countries make parts and assemble different automobiles.

Still we must acknowledge that too many people now earn their living with low paying jobs in service industries like fast foods.

I am not an economist but it seems that we are wealthier as a country under NAFTA. BTW, most of us still call it NAFTA because the new deal whose negotiations were forced by Trump is not really much different than the original.

Cheers,

George
NYGiant
home  USA
Posts: 953
Joined: 2021
This day in World History! Continued
12/20/2022 5:41:04 AM
On this day in US History....

On December 20, 1836, President Andrew Jackson presents Congress with a treaty he negotiated with the Ioway, Sacs, Sioux, Fox, Otoe and Omaha tribes of the Missouri territory. The treaty, which removed those tribes from their ancestral homelands to make way for white settlement, epitomized racist 19th century presidential policies toward Native Americans. The agreement was just one of nearly 400 treaties—nearly always unequal—that were concluded between various tribes and the U.S. government between 1788 and 1883.

American population growth and exploration of the west in the early to mid-1800s amplified conflicts over territory inhabited by Native American tribes who held different views of land and property ownership than white settlers. During this time, Andrew Jackson played a major part in shaping U.S. policy toward Native Americans. A hero of the War of 1812, he earned equal recognition as an Indian fighter and treaty negotiator. In fact, he brokered nine treaties before becoming president in 1829. In 1830, as part of his zealous quest to acquire new territory for the nation, President Jackson pushed for the passing of the Indian Removal Act. It was this act that allowed for the 1838 forced removal by the U.S. military of Cherokee from their Georgia homeland to barren land in the Oklahoma territory. The march at gunpoint—during which 4,000 Cherokee died from starvation, disease and the cold—became known as the Trail of Tears. Jackson’s policies toward Indians reflected the general view among whites of the time that Indians were an inferior race who stood in the way of American economic progress.

A few presidents have made small attempts to bridge the gap of mistrust and maltreatment between the U.S. government and Native Americans. In 1886, Grover Cleveland protected Indian land rights when a railroad company petitioned the government to run tracks through a reservation. In 1924, Calvin Coolidge passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted automatic U.S. citizenship to all American tribes, along with all the rights pertaining to citizenship. On personal moral grounds, Coolidge sincerely regretted the state of poverty to which many Indian tribes had sunk after decades of legal persecution and forced assimilation. Throughout his two terms in office, Coolidge presented at least a public image as a strong proponent of tribal rights. In recognition of his advocacy for Native Americans, a North Dakota tribe of Sioux “adopted” Coolidge as an honorary tribal member in 1927. However, U.S. government policies of forced assimilation, which worked to separate families and tribes and destroy native cultures, remained in full swing during his administration.

Largely relegated to reservations by the late 1800s, Native American tribes across the country were obliterated by disease and plunged into poverty, a state many remain in today.



George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
12/20/2022 7:35:33 AM
Re: death of Sitting Bull

MD, your statement inadvertently suggests that Sitting Bull was killed in Canada which is not true of course.

He and his people did seek refuge in Canada. He and his people were a target because of participation in resistance against the US cavalry including the famous battle at Little Big Horn. If they were not to be eradicated, they were to be encouraged or forced onto reserves. And so Sitting Bull headed north.

The Lakota Sioux had entered into a treaty with the US in 1868 to move to reserve lands in South Dakota. But when gold was discovered in the sacred Black Hills, miners flooded into reserve lands. So the Lakota, feeling that the treaty had been abrogated, decided to roam the Montana area in search of buffalo and avoiding contact with the US army. But on June 25, 1876 they were attacked in a number of places and defended themselves at Little Big Horn. We all know something of that story.

Fearful of the reprisal that was sure to come, Sitting Bull took himself and about 5,000 of his people into Canada and set up camp in the Cypress Hills area of what would become Saskatchewan. Responsibility for law and order in the Canadian west was left to the North West Mounted Police. Of note, Sitting Bull was not the first First Nations person or group to cross the border seeking refuge but he is probably the most famous.

Sitting Bull was met by Inspector James Walsh and a small group of Mounties. He told them that they were welcome to stay but they had to obey the laws of Canada and could not use Canada as a base from which to launch raids into the US. Sitting Bull agreed and brought out a medal that had been given to his grandfather. Through an interpreter he said:

Quote:
“My grandfather received this medal in recognition of his battle for George III during the revolution. Now in this odd time, I direct my people here to reclaim a sanctuary of my grandfather.”


Inspector Walsh asked Sitting Bull to surrender any personal items taken from soldiers killed at Little Big Horn. He complied and these items were returned to the US.

It seems that the first year went well as there was sufficient supply of bison. US concerns arrived and tried to convince Sitting Bull to return. I am not sure why he was wanted but in any case, he refused and he held three US emissaries hostage for a time until Inspector Walsh convinced him to release them.

Walsh and Sitting Bull respected one another but the Canadian government was not willing to provide food for the Sioux and when the bison became more scarce, they became hungry.

Sitting Bull actually met with an old adversary, Crowfoot of the Blackfoot, and they decided that they should make peace.

But the Canadian government was concerned with the presence of Sitting Bull and his people. The government had already negotiated treaties with many tribes in the west. These are called the famous "numbered treaties" in Canada and by the First Nations. The presence of Sitting Bull was problematic as he did not have any treaty lands and so the government was fearful of inter-tribal wars erupting over land claims. As it was, the Assiniboine tribe had demanded the removal of the Sioux with whom they competed for the small number of bison still available.

Sitting Bull asked for a treaty negotiation and land for his people but the Canadian government refused. The PM of the day, Sir John A. Macdonald, said that these were "American Indians" and not the concern of the Canadian government. Inspector Walsh was ordered to convince Sitting Bull to at least meet with an American delegation. Initially he refuse and is purported to have said to Walsh:

Quote:
“Why do you come and seek us to go and talk with men who are killing our own race? You see these men, women, and children, wounded and bleeding? We cannot talk with men who have blood on their hands. They had stained the grass of the White Mother with it.”


Eventually Sitting Bull would agree to meet with an American delegation at Fort Walsh which was in the Cypress Hills where the Sioux were camped. Several chiefs were present and all but one refused to shake the hands of the Americans and no peace pipe ceremony was enacted. The Americans told Sitting Bull that other Sioux were treated very well and that he should return.

He told them to go back where they came from and added:

Quote:
For 64 years you have kept me and my people and treated us badly. What have we done that you should want us to stop? We have done nothing. It is the people on your side who have started us to do these depredations. We could not go anywhere else, so we took refuge in this country.”


The Canadian government wanted the Sioux problem to disappear and while the Mounties had provided some food to them, that was cut off. The bison had disappeared. It was reported that skinners on the US side were deliberately eradicating the bison so that very few roamed across the international border.

The government felt that Inspector Walsh was a bit too cozy with Sitting Bull who trusted him implicitly. And so they transferred Walsh to a post quite far away. Reports from senior officers of the NWMP indicated that they felt badly about the treatment of the Sioux.

In dribs and drabs, Sitting Bull's starving people began to head back to the US side even as Sitting Bull continued to plead with the Canadian government to provide refuge. And eventually, Sitting Bull too returned to the reservation where his fears were realized. He was still an activist and a proponent of the Ghost Dance which frightened US authorities.

Reservation police came to arrest him at his home on the US reserve and a scuffle ensued and he was shot and killed on Dec. 15, 1890.

This is a Heritage Minute video about Sitting Bull in Canada

[Read More]


Some of the information that I have presented about Sitting Bull in Canada was gleaned from this article:

[Read More]

Cheers,

George
Michigan Dave
Muskegon MI USA
Posts: 8313
Joined: 2006
This day in World History! Continued
12/20/2022 11:02:07 AM
Hi George,

I know later in history Canada had trouble with parochial 1 st Nations schools. But you definitely treated Sitting Bull , & his 1st Nations allies better than the US did!?

Thanks for the websites!

Regards,
MD
----------------------------------
"The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
George
Centre Hastings ON Canada
Posts: 13550
Joined: 2009
This day in World History! Continued
12/20/2022 11:49:09 AM
Quote:
Hi George,

I know later in history Canada had trouble with parochial 1 st Nations schools. But you definitely treated Sitting Bull , & his 1st Nations allies better than the US did!?

Thanks for the websites!

Regards,
MD


There was far less violence in Canada in the sense that we did not have any army at war with the FN's. But most assuredly the treaties that were signed, especially in the east, were not fully honoured.
We are currently and seemingly always in discussion with FN about how they interpreted the words of a treaty or the symbols on a wampum belt.

I think that we are coming to a point whereby these First Nations will receive greater autonomy over their governance. What that means, I do not know. However, we still have Indian reservations in remote places in the north that do not have any economic base at all and are not living well. They rely upon the federal government for housing, medical care and even clean water. We still have many remote reservations on a "boil water" advisory.

As for the residential schools from my perspective today, they were an evil thing. Children were uprooted from their homes and transported hundreds of kilometres to live in these schools. The schools were funded partly by the federal government and partly by the religious groups that administered to them.

It is true that grave sites have been uncovered at a number of schools. These are not mass graves but they are or were cemeteries. Hundreds of kids over the greater than a century that these schools operated, never returned home. The government showed little respect for the FN cultures and while the schools were designed to educate they were also designed to "drive the Indian out of the Indian" as our first PM, John A. Macdonald once said. Apologies have been made but I do not know what will make things right or even better in the view of the FN's.

Cheers,

George
Brian Grafton
Victoria BC Canada
Posts: 4811
Joined: 2004
This day in World History! Continued
12/20/2022 10:30:39 PM
Sorry for noting a 4-day-old article. This comes from the “Science” section of NYT, dated 16 Dec 2022. It deals with the at-least partial reversal of restrictions placed on J.Robert Oppenheimer after allegations he was a threat to the US, being a socialist, communist and perhaps foreign spy. [Read More]

This 2022 rejection of the AEC findings comes largely from the release of papers declassified during the Obama administration. I’m surprised that I missed comments on 16 Dec, or that more has not been noted of this reversal. I wonder what the US may have lost because of the hearings which led to Oppenheimer’s mistreatment?

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
12/21/2022 7:10:20 AM
On this day in US History...

On December 21, 1891, 30-year-old James Naismith introduces the first game of basketball. Based on 13 rules created by Naismith, the game is tested by 18 students at the International Young Men’s Christian Association Training School in Springfield, Massachusetts. Two teams of nine players each compete against each other, with the objective to throw a soccer ball into a peach basket attached to a balcony 10 feet above the floor.​

In the early 1890s, Naismith—who was born in Canada—moved on from his job in Montreal as McGill University's athletic director to become a physical education teacher at the YMCA International Training School. Bored and unruly students needed an activity during difficult New England winters. So, Naismith took up another teacher's challenge to keep students in line.

“I called the boys to the gym, divided them up into teams of nine and gave them a little soccer ball,” Naismith recalled in a 1939 radio interview that aired on WOR-AM in New York City. “I showed them two peach baskets I’d nailed up at each end of the gym, and I told them the idea was to throw the ball into the opposing team’s peach basket. I blew the whistle, and the first game of basketball began.”

A jump ball was held after each made basket.

"The invention of basketball was not an accident," Naismith said. "It was developed to meet a need. Those boys simply would not play 'Drop the Handkerchief.'"



Under two different sets of rules, the first organized collegiate basketball games were played in the mid-1890s.

Naismith, who died in 1939, became the first basketball coach at Kansas University, where he led the Jayhawks from 1898-1907.
Page 45 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