When Jefferson's wife passed away, her dying wish was for Jefferson to never remarry, and he kept that promise. But that's the thing about his wife's request: she only asked him to never marry another woman.
This post from a WWII museum in New Orleans says the most common question they're asked is what the D in D-Day stands for. There have been various competing theories, but a likely answer is that it stands for Day. While Day-Day sounds a bit odd, common army terminology for a major operation used timings in relation to the expected date - so D-1 for instance would be one day before the operation.
16th century artillery master Franz Helm wrote about how to use gunpowder and fire in warfare. He describes a method for setting fire to a city you can't approach. Now strapping burning things to the backs of cats sounds like a terribly bad idea to me, but at least it gave us this illustration of a cat with a jetpack. You go, rocket cat.
16th century artillery master Franz Helm wrote about how to use gunpowder and fire in warfare. He describes a method for setting fire to a city you can't approach. Now strapping burning things to the backs of cats sounds like a terribly bad idea to me, but at least it gave us this illustration of a cat with a jetpack. You go, rocket cat.
I've seen that in a lecture before. One of the key things, was that the cats had to be from the city you were sieging, so that when they got freaked out by having a flaming bomb on their back, they'd run back into the city.
16th century artillery master Franz Helm wrote about how to use gunpowder and fire in warfare. He describes a method for setting fire to a city you can't approach. Now strapping burning things to the backs of cats sounds like a terribly bad idea to me, but at least it gave us this illustration of a cat with a jetpack. You go, rocket cat.
I've seen that in a lecture before. One of the key things, was that the cats had to be from the city you were sieging, so that when they got freaked out by having a flaming bomb on their back, they'd run back into the city.
I wanna strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea.
"But Dev6, surely they must be dead by now!" You're correct, hypothetical person! I would go back in time and strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea. Punch baby Hitler in the face? Nope, kill bomb-cat guy. Screw him.
16th century artillery master Franz Helm wrote about how to use gunpowder and fire in warfare. He describes a method for setting fire to a city you can't approach. Now strapping burning things to the backs of cats sounds like a terribly bad idea to me, but at least it gave us this illustration of a cat with a jetpack. You go, rocket cat.
I've seen that in a lecture before. One of the key things, was that the cats had to be from the city you were sieging, so that when they got freaked out by having a flaming bomb on their back, they'd run back into the city.
I wanna strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea.
"But Dev6, surely they must be dead by now!" You're correct, hypothetical person! I would go back in time and strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea. Punch baby Hitler in the face? Nope, kill bomb-cat guy. Screw him.
16th century artillery master Franz Helm wrote about how to use gunpowder and fire in warfare. He describes a method for setting fire to a city you can't approach. Now strapping burning things to the backs of cats sounds like a terribly bad idea to me, but at least it gave us this illustration of a cat with a jetpack. You go, rocket cat.
I've seen that in a lecture before. One of the key things, was that the cats had to be from the city you were sieging, so that when they got freaked out by having a flaming bomb on their back, they'd run back into the city.
I wanna strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea.
"But Dev6, surely they must be dead by now!" You're correct, hypothetical person! I would go back in time and strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea. Punch baby Hitler in the face? Nope, kill bomb-cat guy. Screw him.
16th century artillery master Franz Helm wrote about how to use gunpowder and fire in warfare. He describes a method for setting fire to a city you can't approach. Now strapping burning things to the backs of cats sounds like a terribly bad idea to me, but at least it gave us this illustration of a cat with a jetpack. You go, rocket cat.
I've seen that in a lecture before. One of the key things, was that the cats had to be from the city you were sieging, so that when they got freaked out by having a flaming bomb on their back, they'd run back into the city.
I wanna strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea.
"But Dev6, surely they must be dead by now!" You're correct, hypothetical person! I would go back in time and strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea. Punch baby Hitler in the face? Nope, kill bomb-cat guy. Screw him.
It was kind of viewed as the same thing. Cats were thought of as symbols of the Devil.
Did you know that witch burning was rare in the medieval world, and most of it took place during the Renaissance/Early modern period? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
16th century artillery master Franz Helm wrote about how to use gunpowder and fire in warfare. He describes a method for setting fire to a city you can't approach. Now strapping burning things to the backs of cats sounds like a terribly bad idea to me, but at least it gave us this illustration of a cat with a jetpack. You go, rocket cat.
I've seen that in a lecture before. One of the key things, was that the cats had to be from the city you were sieging, so that when they got freaked out by having a flaming bomb on their back, they'd run back into the city.
I wanna strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea.
"But Dev6, surely they must be dead by now!" You're correct, hypothetical person! I would go back in time and strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea. Punch baby Hitler in the face? Nope, kill bomb-cat guy. Screw him.
It was kind of viewed as the same thing. Cats were thought of as symbols of the Devil.
Did you know that witch burning was rare in the medieval world, and most of it took place during the Renaissance/Early modern period? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
I actually wasn't aware of that. I got some reading up to do.
I saw a nice story about Anne Frank's diary recently. A new imaging technique was used to see what she had written in pages covered by brown paper - finding some dirty jokes and discussions about sex. Good teenage stuff .
Sally Hemings, the slave with whom Thomas Jefferson had a yearslong affair, may not be a "lesser known historical fact" for much longer. The museum at Monticello itself is opening an exhibit about Hemings and her relationship with Jefferson.
The more I learn, the more I think Jefferson was a real piece of work. So let me get this straight, he shacked up with his dead wife's sister when she was 16 and "Didn't think they could handle their freedom", even during his presidency. Gimmi a break. I'm not sure which I think less of now, him or 'Backstab the Cherokee' Jackson.
The more I learn, the more I think Jefferson was a real piece of work. So let me get this straight, he shacked up with his dead wife's sister when she was 16 and "Didn't think they could handle their freedom", even during his presidency. Gimmi a break. I'm not sure which I think less of now, him or 'Backstab the Cherokee' Jackson.
Looking at people in the context of their times is one of the biggest challenges of dealing with history. The idea that you could even run a society without slaves is only a few centuries old. France may have abolished it in the 14th century, but they still practiced it abroad. Let's face it, feudalism was just slavery with extra steps. The first time I tried to read Plato as a kid, I stopped when I got to the part where he said it was every free man's right to own slaves. I am absolutely not trying to justify slavery, it was a horrible institution. But, these people genuinely believed society was better for the institution and just didn't see the alternatives or didn't see them as being viable. With hindsight it's very easy to judge.
The Romans only encountered a single Germanic tribe that didn't practice slavery, and they thought it was so strange that they noted it. I wish I had a reference for this, I'm pretty sure it was in one of the lectures by Professor Kenneth Harl I have. The point is, slavery was pretty much universal until fairly recently.
Most of the founding fathers of the US were all certifiable pieces of work - in part because they were young revolutionaries to begin with (except Ben Franklin he was older, but still a piece of work). Well-adjusted types typically don't make revolutions.
But for other fun Russia facts, the former interior minister (basically like security chief) of Czarist Russia for the almost-revolution years of 1905-1906 (if you're not familiar; Czarism almost collapsed due to a disastrous war with Japan and other economic problems) was a fellow named Pyotr Durnovo. He's mostly known in history for the widespread political repression which he initiated to stem the tide of revolution in Russia whilst Interior Minister. Some historians even credit him specifically with saving czarism in that period, despite his unseemly methods. However, he wouldn't last long and resigned shortly after the situation normalized, but because Russia was an autocracy, his ties to the Czar meant he still had the power to influence events. He was granted his salary for the rest of his life and a fancy mansion too, despite not holding an official title.
In February 1914, 4 months before the assassination of Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand, he sent a memorandum to the Czar regarding what he thought might occur in the very near future. If one takes the time to peruse the document http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his242/Documents/Durnovo.pdf (translated into English) he more or less correctly predicts exactly what is about to happen. The letter was found among Czar Nicholas II's things after he abdicated. He even goes so far as to (correctly) predict the disposition of subsidiary European states to the coming conflict, the character of that conflict, and the problems that Russia would face in such a conflict, as well as the coming of socialist revolution in Russia, and the likelihood that Germany would descend into political chaos (if defeated) which would result in a future cataclysm.
He died in 1915, of natural causes, so he wasn't able to stand in a street corner in St. Petersburg shouting "I told you so" but I like to imagine he did anyways.
He died in 1915, of natural causes, so he wasn't able to stand in a street corner in St. Petersburg shouting "I told you so" but I like to imagine he did anyways.
Just as well, probably wouldn't have had a very good chance of making it out alive anywys.
Who started World War I? There are a number of people who helped contribute to the war, but no one ever claimed responsibility for the war happening.
Well, except for the German official Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, who viewed war with Russia as inevitable and believed that the outcome would determine whether Russia or Germany would determine who would be the dominant power in European long into the future. He encouraged the outbreak of war in an attempt to get the war to happen on Germany's terms and increase the chance of a German victory.
In Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?, David Fromkin (page 305) names Moltke as the man who deliberately started the war. After Moltke was demoted, he wrote to a friend complaining about the demotion and claiming responsibility for the war: “It is dreadful to be condemned to inactivity in this war… this war which I prepared and initiated.” (emphasis mine and Fromkin's)
Who started World War I? There are a number of people who helped contribute to the war, but no one ever claimed responsibility for the war happening.
Well, except for the German official Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, who viewed war with Russia as inevitable and believed that the outcome would determine whether Russia or Germany would determine who would be the dominant power in European long into the future. He encouraged the outbreak of war in an attempt to get the war to happen on Germany's terms and increase the chance of a German victory.
In Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?, David Fromkin (page 305) names Moltke as the man who deliberately started the war. After Moltke was demoted, he wrote to a friend complaining about the demotion and claiming responsibility for the war: “It is dreadful to be condemned to inactivity in this war… this war which I prepared and initiated.” (emphasis mine and Fromkin's)
The Kaiser's obsession with fleet building played a large role as well. Antagonizing Great Britain, a historical ally of Prussia in the past, was a major blunder. The war would not have lasted nearly as long if the Brits hadn't gotten involved (it's very unlikely the US would have intervened without Britain either). I'm not sure how things would have played out in the long run though. Germany was very focused on becoming a colonial power. It's likely that WW2 would not have happened, but the colonial period may have lasted a lot longer as a result. It's nearly impossible to gauge what the world would have been like now if the World Wars hadn't turned out the way they did...
During a visit to London, I learned that Britain's Imperial Indian Crown is so extravagant and heavy that it has only been worn once since it was created 117 years ago. King George revealed the reason in a journal entry for the only day he ever wore it:
One of the reasons, and the main reason IMO as the Americans had the Canadian forces out numbered substantially at the beginning of the war is that back then, that resulted in this war being a stalemate, the soldiers of an actual regiment voted if they were asked to invade foreign soil.
So when it was time to cross the border, each commanding officer (who was also elected to the position by those he led) would take a vote if they’d cross or not and majority would win.
This played a crucial part when the American’s attempted to take Queenstown by Niagara. The American’s heavily outnumber the Canadians and British soldiers on the other but After the first few boats made it to the shore on the other side were met with heavy resistance, the boats that were still in the water turned back around to the other side and soldiers refused to crossed.
One of the reasons, and the main reason IMO as the Americans had the Canadian forces out numbered substantially at the beginning of the war is that back then, that resulted in this war being a stalemate, the soldiers of an actual regiment voted if they were asked to invade foreign soil.
So when it was time to cross the border, each commanding officer (who was also elected to the position by those he led) would take a vote if they’d cross or not and majority would win.
This played a crucial part when the American’s attempted to take Queenstown by Niagara. The American’s heavily outnumber the Canadians and British soldiers on the other but After the first few boats made it to the shore on the other side were met with heavy resistance, the boats that were still in the water turned back around to the other side and soldiers refused to crossed.
Sounds a lot like they were reading Xenophon's Anabasis when they came up with that system. Problem is the Greek army in the Anabasis was stranded in hostile territory and had to stick together to survive, so voting on what to do next worked.
If you're not familiar with the Anabasis, it's a cool read. It's about a Greek mercenary army hired by The Persian Prince Cyrus in 401BC (right after the Peloponnesian War. They were told they were just going to put down some barbarians in what is today South Eastern Turkey. He dragged them all the way to Mesopotamia until informing them "Oh by the way, we're going to attack my brother Artaxerxes and I'll take over and be King." Near the city of Cunaxa, a massive battle between the armies of the 2 brothers took place, and the Greek portion of Cyrus' army tore through the Persian's left flank and kept charing. They thought they were winning, but Cyrus took a spear to the temple.
With the Prince dead, there was no reason to keep fighting, so most of the army surrendered. About 10,000 Greeks refused to surrender and were stuck hostile territory. They struck a deal with Tissapharnes, the Persian Satrap, to be lead out of Persian territory. Tissapharnes betrayed them, and killed Clearchus and the other Greek Strategoi. The Greek army just elected new generals, and kept marching north to the see, raiding for supplies the whole way. Most stories stop like halfway, when they reach Trapezus on The Black Sea, but the book goes on a long ways, with them raiding all back through Anatolia, and eventually into Thrace, and finally ends when Spartan envoys come to recruit them to help fight Tissapharnes and return to Persia.
The more I learn, the more I think Jefferson was a real piece of work. So let me get this straight, he shacked up with his dead wife's sister when she was 16 and "Didn't think they could handle their freedom", even during his presidency. Gimmi a break. I'm not sure which I think less of now, him or 'Backstab the Cherokee' Jackson.
Looking at people in the context of their times is one of the biggest challenges of dealing with history. The idea that you could even run a society without slaves is only a few centuries old. France may have abolished it in the 14th century, but they still practiced it abroad. Let's face it, feudalism was just slavery with extra steps. The first time I tried to read Plato as a kid, I stopped when I got to the part where he said it was every free man's right to own slaves. I am absolutely not trying to justify slavery, it was a horrible institution. But, these people genuinely believed society was better for the institution and just didn't see the alternatives or didn't see them as being viable. With hindsight it's very easy to judge.
The Romans only encountered a single Germanic tribe that didn't practice slavery, and they thought it was so strange that they noted it. I wish I had a reference for this, I'm pretty sure it was in one of the lectures by Professor Kenneth Harl I have. The point is, slavery was pretty much universal until fairly recently.
While looking at people in the context of their times is a challenge I disagree about applying this to American black slavery in the way that you do. Serfdom was a terrible institution, but not to same degree as slavery. Also, the US was founded by English settlers at a time where serfdom had been abolished in England. There was a reason that it was not tolerated directly on English soils, as people did not like it.
And at the time of the US revolution, there had already been some vocal and published opposition to the institution of slavery. While Jefferson was not worse than most his contemporaries in this regard, he was worse than a sizable minority and as an educated man, he was definitely exposed to more progressive thoughts on the topic.
Notably Jefferson wanted to include a passage attacking slavery into the declaration of independence, which was struck out. I think he was philosophically opposed to slavery, but it was too convenient to him (both personally and politically) to actually do something about it... which is not a good thing to have to say about him.
Fun fact about the first draft of the Declaration of Independence: in the very same document in which Jefferson says that all "men" are created equal and are endowed inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Jefferson uses that same very important word, "men," to refer to the slaves. It's part of his long complaint about slavery in the first draft, which is one of the accusations against King George:
"this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce"
There are only three parts of the first draft which are in all caps: the title, the word Christian, and the word men. I find it very significant that Jefferson would put "MEN" in all caps when referring to the slaves, given the statements about that word in the very first sentence of the document.
As I said in my thesis back in college, this is what Jefferson wrote in the most important document that he ever authored in his long and lettered life. This was his opportunity to speak his mind in a venue that mattered; Jefferson could not have failed to understand the significance of this document.
In the Declaration in which he stated the principles that are the basis of this country, Jefferson wrote that the blacks deserved to be free.
Or perhaps it was an opportunity to save face knowing it wouldn't make a difference.
...What do you mean cynical?
Cynical or not, I do not really understand what you are saying. What is he trying to save face about, and who is the audience for which he wants to preserve face?
Comments
"But Dev6, surely they must be dead by now!"
You're correct, hypothetical person! I would go back in time and strap a flaming bomb to the back of whoever came up with this idea. Punch baby Hitler in the face? Nope, kill bomb-cat guy. Screw him.
*goes pet ALL the cats in the world*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat-burning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition
Betcha didn't expect a non-spanish inquisition.
Did you know that witch burning was rare in the medieval world, and most of it took place during the Renaissance/Early modern period?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcibiades#Sicilian_Expedition
A Herm/Hermai was basically a stone block or pillar that only had the head of Hermes and a Phallus on it.
The Romans only encountered a single Germanic tribe that didn't practice slavery, and they thought it was so strange that they noted it. I wish I had a reference for this, I'm pretty sure it was in one of the lectures by Professor Kenneth Harl I have. The point is, slavery was pretty much universal until fairly recently.
But for other fun Russia facts, the former interior minister (basically like security chief) of Czarist Russia for the almost-revolution years of 1905-1906 (if you're not familiar; Czarism almost collapsed due to a disastrous war with Japan and other economic problems) was a fellow named Pyotr Durnovo. He's mostly known in history for the widespread political repression which he initiated to stem the tide of revolution in Russia whilst Interior Minister. Some historians even credit him specifically with saving czarism in that period, despite his unseemly methods. However, he wouldn't last long and resigned shortly after the situation normalized, but because Russia was an autocracy, his ties to the Czar meant he still had the power to influence events. He was granted his salary for the rest of his life and a fancy mansion too, despite not holding an official title.
In February 1914, 4 months before the assassination of Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand, he sent a memorandum to the Czar regarding what he thought might occur in the very near future. If one takes the time to peruse the document http://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his242/Documents/Durnovo.pdf (translated into English) he more or less correctly predicts exactly what is about to happen. The letter was found among Czar Nicholas II's things after he abdicated. He even goes so far as to (correctly) predict the disposition of subsidiary European states to the coming conflict, the character of that conflict, and the problems that Russia would face in such a conflict, as well as the coming of socialist revolution in Russia, and the likelihood that Germany would descend into political chaos (if defeated) which would result in a future cataclysm.
He died in 1915, of natural causes, so he wasn't able to stand in a street corner in St. Petersburg shouting "I told you so" but I like to imagine he did anyways.
Well, except for the German official Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, who viewed war with Russia as inevitable and believed that the outcome would determine whether Russia or Germany would determine who would be the dominant power in European long into the future. He encouraged the outbreak of war in an attempt to get the war to happen on Germany's terms and increase the chance of a German victory.
In Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914?, David Fromkin (page 305) names Moltke as the man who deliberately started the war. After Moltke was demoted, he wrote to a friend complaining about the demotion and claiming responsibility for the war: “It is dreadful to be condemned to inactivity in this war… this war which I prepared and initiated.” (emphasis mine and Fromkin's)
One of the reasons, and the main reason IMO as the Americans had the Canadian forces out numbered substantially at the beginning of the war is that back then, that resulted in this war being a stalemate, the soldiers of an actual regiment voted if they were asked to invade foreign soil.
So when it was time to cross the border, each commanding officer (who was also elected to the position by those he led) would take a vote if they’d cross or not and majority would win.
This played a crucial part when the American’s attempted to take Queenstown by Niagara. The American’s heavily outnumber the Canadians and British soldiers on the other but After the first few boats made it to the shore on the other side were met with heavy resistance, the boats that were still in the water turned back around to the other side and soldiers refused to crossed.
If you're not familiar with the Anabasis, it's a cool read. It's about a Greek mercenary army hired by The Persian Prince Cyrus in 401BC (right after the Peloponnesian War. They were told they were just going to put down some barbarians in what is today South Eastern Turkey. He dragged them all the way to Mesopotamia until informing them "Oh by the way, we're going to attack my brother Artaxerxes and I'll take over and be King." Near the city of Cunaxa, a massive battle between the armies of the 2 brothers took place, and the Greek portion of Cyrus' army tore through the Persian's left flank and kept charing. They thought they were winning, but Cyrus took a spear to the temple.
With the Prince dead, there was no reason to keep fighting, so most of the army surrendered. About 10,000 Greeks refused to surrender and were stuck hostile territory. They struck a deal with Tissapharnes, the Persian Satrap, to be lead out of Persian territory. Tissapharnes betrayed them, and killed Clearchus and the other Greek Strategoi. The Greek army just elected new generals, and kept marching north to the see, raiding for supplies the whole way. Most stories stop like halfway, when they reach Trapezus on The Black Sea, but the book goes on a long ways, with them raiding all back through Anatolia, and eventually into Thrace, and finally ends when Spartan envoys come to recruit them to help fight Tissapharnes and return to Persia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_(Xenophon)
I actually tried to run a White Wolf table top game based on it, recently. It's just hard to get adults to come to something like that every week.
And at the time of the US revolution, there had already been some vocal and published opposition to the institution of slavery. While Jefferson was not worse than most his contemporaries in this regard, he was worse than a sizable minority and as an educated man, he was definitely exposed to more progressive thoughts on the topic.
Notably Jefferson wanted to include a passage attacking slavery into the declaration of independence, which was struck out. I think he was philosophically opposed to slavery, but it was too convenient to him (both personally and politically) to actually do something about it... which is not a good thing to have to say about him.
As I said in my thesis back in college, this is what Jefferson wrote in the most important document that he ever authored in his long and lettered life. This was his opportunity to speak his mind in a venue that mattered; Jefferson could not have failed to understand the significance of this document.
In the Declaration in which he stated the principles that are the basis of this country, Jefferson wrote that the blacks deserved to be free.
...What do you mean cynical?