As I sit in my cube about 2 miles from one end of the Monitor/Merrimac bridge-tunnel it’s always been a peev of mine that they still get the name of the ship wrong. Yes I know that the Virginia was built on the hull of the original Merrimac, but the Merrimac burned to the waterline and was pretty much a write-off. When the south rebuilt it and re-christened it the Virginia, that became the name of the ship.
Huh. I always thought that was the other way around - that the Virginia became the Merrimac.
Nope, Merrimac became Virginia. Merrimac is a river in (Vermont? Montpelier is on it, I think). The Confederacy wouldn’t have chosen that name, but it fits better with ‘Monitor.’
The Jay Treaty is remembered as a bad treaty that the young United States was more or less forced into because we really didn’t want a war with England again. The conveniently forgotten part is that Alexander Hamilton told English diplomats what the United States would cave on - Jay had no leverage in negotiations.
What’s really interesting in this Wikipedia discussion about Marie Antoinette’s supposed quote (which I agree she probably didn’t say) is that it completely ignores the last sentence.
My French is rusty, but “j’achetai de la brioche” roughly translates to “I bought the brioche for them.” Babelfish and Google translations both say, “I bought the brioche.” It seems to me that this last sentence, the one everyone ignores, pretty much changes the meaning completely. Doesn’t it?
Stupid Rousseau.
Slavery would have eventually become TOO expensive to maintain so the Slaves wouldn’t have been a “value”.
Quite rusty. There’s no “for them” in there. In any case, I think that is supposed to be something Rosseau was saying, rather than part of Antoinette’s quote.
Virginia was a well-established colony which had already elected its first legislature by the time of the arrival of the Mayflower. The Mayflower Compact was of little to no importance (as compared with the Virginia House of Burgesses) in setting the framework for American democracy, and the role of the Pilgrims in American history is over-emphasized. Here’s a good example of such over-emphasis in pop history.
The American Revolution was won in the Carolina backcountry, where Cornwallis was put to flight. The role of the Carolinas in the War is often neglected.
Hitler was never elected in any sense, reasonable or unreasonable. He ran for president against Hindenberg, and lost (but had significant support). He was appointed chancellor by Hindenberg.
The role of everybody in the war is almost always neglected. How much military history do you think students get?
There are a lot of things that get neglected for one reason or another, especially with regards to the American Revolution.
Ever heard of Fort Mercer? It was the most one-sided victory by the Continentals for pretty much the entire war, including Trenton! It had consequences up and down from keeping occupied Philadelphia from being easily resupplied (for a while at least) to a source of friction between Hessian officers and British command. Yet even locally a lot of folks haven’t heard of the battle.
So why is it such a footnote? After the war the politicians went around pandering to voters by playing up the role of the militias on the Continental forces and severely downplaying the critical role of the Continental Army. It was decades before anyone started to acknowledge that the Army existed let alone its crucial role. But some of the effects of that pandering worked their way down through the decades: Since Fort Mercer was defended by Continentals it never got the politicians play-up and so almost gets ignored by history.
Either way, he was not one of them. Even had he lived in that age he would not have been one of them.
But his party was the largest party in the Reichstag, and had been since around 1930. He hadn’t been appointed chancellor before because the pro-democracy parties (rightly) didn’t want him there, so they instead tried to cobble up unstable coalitions.
In a parliamentary system, the prime minister is technically never really elected. The person who can best command a majority in the legislature is appointed to the position. I understand that the Weimar republic wasn’t a pure parliamentary system, but when Hitler was appointed chancellor, he was the obvious choice for the position. That’s as close to being “elected” as he can get.
Oh yes, do tell us how many lives Operation Northwoods affected. Please.
Given that I’m a card-carrying Wobbly in good standing (need a photograph of my Little Red Card?) and both a union delegate and an active union organizer, I’m curious how you figure that (a) I don’t contribute to the labour movement, and (b) that I wouldn’t have done so 75 years ago, given similar circumstances. I know I shouldn’t respond to stuff like this, but the loser attitude around these parts is starting to annoy me, where anyone who stands out, stands up, or dares to flaut the SD gestalt gets dogpiled.
For one thing, the IWW of today resembles its industrial revolution counterpart as much as a McMansion resembles a Medieval Castle.
There is a way to be a gadfly, to be a devil’s advocate, to represent an unpopular position. Right now, you are doing it wrong. This isn’t the SDMB’s fault.
Operation Northwoods is the one which didn’t get approved. If it had been, we would not know about it. In other words, we know from Operation Northwoods that the CIA proposes black ops against its own people. In this particular case it got vetoed. We will never know of the ones that didn’t.
So your argument is that there must be more that were used because we found evidence of one that wasn’t? Sorry, bucko, but if there is one feature of governments it is that they make paper trails in even minor issues. The idea that the CIA has performed murderous actions against its own citizens based on an unimplemented plan that called for, at most, scare tactics and minor attacks on Gitmo doesn’t strike me as being real evidence.
I don’t see your point. Yes, it’s the closest he could get to being elected without being elected. But he could have been elected president, but he wasn’t. He could have been elected to the Reichstag, although that probably wouldn’t have served his purposes, given, as you say, that the Weimar Republic was not a pure parliamentary system. He could have been elected to a regional office, a la Goering. He was never elected to any government position.
I bothered with writing my post because people commonly believe that Hitler was elected. He wasn’t. Whether he was the logical choice for chancellor is an entirely different issue, which I have no desire to get into.
How does this work, exactly? Was the former owner of the slave compensated, or did he just take the loss? If the latter, how did a government get away with pissing off their aristocracy slave owners?
I don’t’ know in this particular issue, but that doesn’t seem to have been a problem in cases of which I am more familiar. Various ancient societies might make such an offer, when they were pressed for fighting men. (You had to be determined, as they were almost always placed in the cannon fodder positions.)