Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Also disappointed with the Lack of History Channel. Regarding Hatfields and McCoys, Big Band leader Clyde (Sugar Blues) McCoy was a descendant.
Skiguy, I held off a bit to give someone else a chance. 😉 It came from the intro to my novel to be published later this year, and if I had not written it, I would never have guessed the answer.
Chartered by the Estates General, the VOC, Vereenigde Oost Indische Compagnie, United East-Indian Company or Dutch East India Company, operated as a government unto itself with powers to wage war, negotiate treaties, coin money, and establish colonies.
Well, William III was half-English — oops not English at all, partially Scot, Danish, French, and Spanish Habsburg on mother's side; Dutch and Hugeunot French on Father's side. Which brings up the fun question, who was the last English King of England? Richard III? Harald? Richard was followed by Welsh Tudors, Scot Stuarts, German Hanovers, Saxe-Coberg-Gotha aka Windsors who wed Danish and German ladies, and George VI married a Scot (at least I think she was). Elizabeth married a Battenberg aka Mountbatten, and I am not sure if Diana may have been more English or Scot. But then, the last Tzar of Russia was only 1/64 Russian.Now about a President who may have been born in Kenya ..... ;D
Is that the same Simon Schama or the "Power of Art" fame?
Yes, and Schama wrote Rembrandt's Eyes also worth reading. Wiliam II of Orange wed Princess Royal Mary Stuart daughter of the "Martyr King" Charles I; thus, their son William III, raised Protestant, appealed to the English Protestants who feared James II would restore Catholicism and rule as an absolute monarch now that he had a son by his second Catholic wife. Also, William III was married to James II's Protestant daughter Mary. Hope that helps expain. The other Protestant daughter and sister of Mary later Queen Anne would die childless and lead to the Hanoverian succession of Georges I-IV, Victoria etc.
I have written a novel, House of Rocamora, due out later this year set mostly in Amsterdam 1643-1688. I have The Dutch Republic, Its Rise and Fall, by Jonathan Israel, and it is a comprehensive but dry tome. Essentially, each province had its own Estates, plus a national Estate in the Hague, and Amsterdam had its own government. There was tension between the House of Orange and the Oligarchic Republicans, mostly over pay for the soldiers after the 30 Years War ended. Also, there was tension between the Calvinist branch of the Reform Church and the more liberal Collegiants, Remonstranters, anti-remonstranters, etc. When William II died young of smallpox shortly after son was born, DeWitt, the Grand Pensioner ran the provinces as a republic until there was failure in war and finances. Before William III came of age, the practical Dutch opted for stability and supported the House of Orange. Alliances are confusing. After the 80 year war with Spain ended, the Dutch feared France more than any other country although rivals with England overseas and for trade.A more interesting better written book that covers the same period is The Embarrassment of Riches by Simon Schama.
Best reason = continuity of culture if not civilization. No intelligent conversation is possible without context. Facts need foundations to be understood. That is why our failed educational system, with a few exceptions, has been producing sevral generations of barbarians.
Of course it is a matter of POV. In my opinion, the South was never the same after the war so one can say it was not “reconstructed” at all. At first it was deconstructed, but then much of the old order returned. And, in the North many Unionists were like Marxist elitists today who want to take from the rich but not necessarily mean well for the poor whom they despise no less; Many if not most Unionists liked the idea more of ending slavery to punish the secessionists than to help/integrate the freed slaves.I believe the "reconstruction" did end with the final breaking of the KKK and civil rights acts in the 1960s, just in time for the great cultural Civil War to begin in the same decade, which continues to this day.
Had Lincoln lived, the idealists might have had a better chance, although unlikely in my opinion. Too many dead and maimed bodies, destroyed homes and land, widows, and disappointed families and lovers who lost those they loved. Add regional hostility, belief the southerners were traitors, and a desire for vengeance that replaced “with malice toward none.” Was it not “Beast” Butler who required southern ladies to step aside for blacks on the sidewalks of New Orleans? And opportunist carpetbaggers and scalawags took advantage of the South as well. As an aside, "unreconstructed" white southern senators in the 1880s were on the committees that dealt with the Indian "problems," which explains some of those great injustices. Even in the 1950s when I served in our 7-year old integrated army in Germany, one southerner complained when he saw a black captain and his family with a white German maid, "Now I know there's something lower than a nigger -- Germans." I have never forgotten that gem. Had we been the Spain of the 1930s, countless thousands would have been executed, up to a million placed in camps, and southern children would have been taken away to be raised as good Unionists by proper families in the North.War may be Hell, but Civil War leaves deeper scars.
In the 1970s, I remember hearing from our Oriental Rug dealer that the long and short broom sweepers were opposed to the introduction of vaccum clearners.
