#Irish Confederate War | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cmanateesto · 2 years ago

Text

Dissecting the Civil War: Part 1

Public schools will oversimplify a complicated issue in American history. Is it to simplify the information for younger students? Or is there something malevolent in the reduction? My thesis is that the Civil War was not a war of abolition. What does this mean?

Slavery has been an issue within the United States since its foundation. The Southern States does everything they can to preserve the institution of slavery. The Southern States would exploit their slave populations in a delegated method. The Electoral College is an institution designed to "correct" the popular vote, I.E: Bush vs. Gore in 2000. This institution counts the representation of states via population. Only liberated men counted as a vote, in other words: white men.��

In the 3/5ths Compromise, the Southern States advocated for slave representation. They did so to garner more votes in the Electoral College. They advocated for this despite a majority of their population's inability to vote. In essence, get representation without actually representing the population. Many saw through the absurdity, but reactionary voices are like toddlers. When told no, they just screech louder until somebody concedes.

The Founders and Slavery: Little Ventured, Little Gained, p. 427, [ of representation."

The 3/5ths Compromise was a concession to stop the incessant screeching. Getting votes without representing the constituents seems to be prevalent throughout American history. What would stoke abolitionist sentiment? First, abolition is the idea of abolishing slavery. Some believed in gradual abolition as they transition from one system to another. Some believed in immediate abolition and this one struck fear. These immediate abolitionists would be the source of a Southern Planter's fear. Popular Abolitionist sentiment wouldn’t rise until the 1830s. The sentiment only went as far as saying they hated slavery, but there was no real plan. What's today's equivalent? Internet Marxists say they despise Capitalism without a plan to transition.

This untreated sentiment wouldn't last forever. In 1853, Anthony Burns was a slave that ran from his slavers in Virginia. He was in Boston for one month before US Marshals captured him. The Marshals were Federal Law Enforcement whose jurisdiction was the entire country. So yes, Federal Law Enforcement worked in favor of slavery despite the grandstanding. The Marshals arrested Burns thanks to the Slave Fugitive Act of 1850. The problem of runaway slaves was so prevalent that Congress passed a law for it. Or we could prohibit slavery, that's an option. Or you know, keep wasting tax dollars on preserving slavery.

They were preparing Burns for deportation back to Virginia. Many Bostonians took an exception to this. Many saw it as a Southern aristocrat enforcing their archaic ways on Northerners. As far as they're concerned, Burns was a part of their community. The Committee of Vigilance was a group founded to counter the Slave Fugitive Act. Their purpose was to make life hard for those attempting to enforce the Slave Fugitive Act. This committee consisted of intellectuals, white allies, and working-class people. It was a union to stick a middle finger against slavery. But hey, counterculture was only a thing of the 60s and 70s. Nixon and Reagan would be proud of these patriots...

The Committee debated between two courses of action.

A: break into the courthouse and remove Burns in a daring rescue. Without Burns, the trial couldn't go through.

B: create a barrier of people so that authorities couldn't get through.

But remember, disturbing law enforcement is only a thing troublemakers and hippies do. This isn't a pastime that's prevalent throughout American history. No, not at all...

Now, most of the committee vied for option B because it was a safer option. Safer for both the committee and Burns. They didn't want to risk Burns' life in an adventurist rescue. That didn't stop everyone though.

Half of the committee vied for the peaceful option while the other half got to work. At night they would march to the courthouse armed with revolvers and axes. They would use these axes to chop at the doors of the courthouse, but these were thick ass doors. So what could be an answer for thick ass doors? Grab a wooden construction beam and use it as a battering ram. Yes, a group of Bostonians grabbed a wooden construction beam and larped as crusaders.

The committee broke in, prompting a fight between them and Court Security. During this Medieval Larp, a member of Court Security died. You know what you gotta do when somebody dies? Yes, they called the police. It's debated whether these abolitionists would have been successful in their escape attempt. Even if they made it to Anthony's cell, it was reinforced with iron. Because you know…Slavers don’t like losing their property.

It got so bad that the United States sent the Marines to keep Boston in order while the trial proceeded. Boston got so wild that the Marines had to get involved.

Semper Fi, don't make the slavers cry.

The mayor was responsible for keeping order in the city while the trials proceeded. The crowds attempted to convince the Mayor to pardon Anthony and not allow the trial to go through. The mayor was almost convinced. Even in the 1850s, the police were dicks. The Mayor said that a company of Marines should be enough to keep Boston in order. The Marshals disagreed. They were right, it would take the entire U.S. Department of Defense to keep Boston in line. Even then, I look at the U.S. Military's track record of peacekeeping. Anyway, they sent a Brigade of Marines instead of a Company, a much larger number.

Some friends of Burns then played the economic game. So if the problem was that the Planter lost a slave, they could compensate the slaver. They have attempted to gather money to buy Burns' freedom. But no matter the offer, the Planter turned it down. Something tells me it wasn't an economic issue as much as it was a social issue. And if you're expecting nuance toward slavers, you won't find it here. Slavery is a bastard profession and all slavers are bastards. All Pro-Slavery advocates are bastards. Their parents are failures and if their kids endorse slavery, they're little Cuntsylvanians. The nuance ends with slavery. Go fuck yourself.

If that didn't turn you away, we can continue. Because the old prick wouldn't accept financial compensation the deal was final. Burns is to be deported. Although, many Bostonians would say not without a fight. As the Marshals and Marines escorted Burns, crowds met them in the streets. They held up signs and coffins. They burned the coffins as a funeral for Burns' freedom.

Just imagine being Burns for a moment. All you wanted to do was live life like a normal human being. To live life without being under somebody's thumb. But because you decided to assert your humanity, Boston riles in your defense. The city of Boston is in civil strife with the United States because you exercised your human rights.

The convoy escorting Burns would run into an unexpected barrier of civilians. The civilians weren’t allowing them to cross, so the Marines would charge at the crowd with Bayonets. That’s right. The Federal Government charged civilians with bayonets. The United States was willing to gut civilians to preserve slavery in 1853. Ultimately Burns was deported back to Virginia. In retaliation, Massachusetts passed a law barring any enforcement of slavery. No law enforcement, including Marshals, could come into Massachusetts to collect fugitive slaves. If a slave entered Massachusetts, they were free. No amount of Southern screeching could change that. Fuck your feelings.

The other fucked part…Burns’ trial was not held by a jury. As a result of that fuckery, Massachusetts placed another concession. Any trial of a slave held is to be judged by a jury of their peers. You know, that right that American citizens are supposed to have in the first place. Something, something 6th Amendment.

Tremain, Mary (1892). Slavery in the District of Columbia; the policy of Congress and the struggle for abolition. University of Nebraska Department of History and Economics Papers. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Boston slave riot, and trial of Anthony Burns. Fetridge and Company. 1854. p. 5. Retrieved April 26, 2013.

Stevens, Charles (1856). Anthony Burns: A History. Boston, Massachusetts: John P. Jewett and Company. Linder, Douglas O. (2019). "The (Fugitive Slave) Trials of Anthony Burns: An Account". www.famous-trials.com. Retrieved 2020-11-22.

Linder, Douglas O. (2019). "Orders of President Franklin Pierce in the Anthony Burns Affair (1854)". www.famous-trials.com. Retrieved 2020-11-22.

Abolitionists weren’t the only ones inflicting violence. Elijah Parish Lovejoy was an abolitionist editor of a newspaper in Illinois. A wild band of inbreds murdered Lovejoy. So reactionaries are murdering abolitionists to preserve the institution of slavery. Why would you need to murder? Why not just debate the virtues of slavery in the free market of ideas? Why would you need to use violence to advance your position?

Oh and on top of that, the abolitionists had to hide Lovejoy's grave. Because the Pro-Slaver mobs can't be burdened with decency. They have to defile the graves of those they murdered. They have to show society how shitty they are about their ideas. If you oppose their ideas, they murder and desecrate your grave. These are the rules. Which is odd considering some people's positions on certain monuments.

But desecrating a man's grave they murdered wasn't enough. They also had to go to a warehouse to destroy this man's editing equipment. Yes, because Lovejoy held the one press to print them all. They must destroy the press before he inflicts his abolitionist magic upon the lands. Destroy the press, Frodo!

But some people had decency. A group gathered at the warehouse to defy the inbred coalition. A fight broke out between the two groups. The local sheriffs would charge the mob with "unlawful defense." Hmmm...let me check my notes...

Second Amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

First Amendment: the freedom of religion, press, and assembly. I believe those are covered grounds. And they're trying to say unlawful defense?

Upon trial, the judge declared that neither party was guilty. Even though the Pro-Slavery mob attempted arson and successfully committed murder. So why was the mob forgiven for its crimes? The judge of the case was a member of the Pro-Slavery mob. He did a poor attempt at hiding it as he was wounded from the incident. So a judge was able to conduct a trial of a crime he was a part of? This is an example of next-level fuckery and many people grew tired of it.

Enter John Brown. A man who had described his fight against slavery as a mission sent by God himself. He described himself as an instrument of God.

youtube

Bleeding Kansas is an example of how far John Brown goes. When he moved there, he knew what he was getting into. When states were going westward, they had a choice either to become free or slave states. Many Pro-Slavery mobs used intimidation and violence to drive out Abolitionists. However, they don't fare too well against those that fight back. After burning down Brown's estate, once was enough for him to gather a militia.

Kansas was a stronghold against Confederate sentiment thanks to John Brown's efforts. Any Confederate attempt of occupation faced Abolitionist Guerilla warfare. Bleeding Kansas was a Wild West epic for the ages that involved two groups of posse in shootouts. The open assassination of politicians. While the Civil War may have officially begun in South Carolina. The war's real beginning was Bleeding Kansas. Pro-Slavers would assassinate abolitionist politicians out in the open. Abolitionists would assassinate Pro-Slaver politicians out in the open. None of the Pro-Slaver murders were in self-defense. It was cases like Lovejoy where they would simply kill a man for disagreeing. So for those that want me to say John Brown was a terrorist, the Slavers instigated the fight. They're just mad because Brown finished it. Just like they were mad about Santa Anna slaughtering Pro-Slavers at the Alamo. Freedom my ass, y'all just wanted to keep your slaves. Freedom for me, but none for thee.

Biblical tales motivated Brown's convictions. He had a vision of freeing the slaves from Southern plantations as Moses had for Hebrews in Egypt. When he planned for Harper's Ferry, he hoped the liberation would inspire others to revolt.

"A few men in the right, and knowing that they are right, can overturn a mighty king. Fifty men, twenty men, in the Alleghenies would break slavery to pieces in two years" - John Brown

He would try to convince Frederick Douglass, but Douglass thought it to be a suicidal mission. Douglass's assessment wasn't wrong. Some wealthier abolitionists provided funding for Brown's activities. He used this funding to enact the help of a British mercenary. The mercenary wrote a tactical book. Brown's militias studied this book in anticipation of Harper's Ferry, including Brown's sons. The raid started smoothly. They captured the armory in Harper's ferry. They cut off the telegram, so no instant communication. There was only one watchman versus Brown’s militia. He had captured some hostages who were owners of the plantation. Brown had ordered the slaves to be informed of their liberation. A train went by the town. Brown held up the train but later released them.

This proved to be the beginning of the end of Brown's raid. The passengers of the train, frightened reported Brown's militia. The next town over had telegram access to nearby sheriffs. This is when things would go South, pun intended.

A wave of deputies and militia came at Brown's militia, pinning them inside a firehouse. Two of his sons died during the firefight. Brown had sent one of his sons to approach the militia with a white flag of surrender... Reactionaries are beyond reason. They gunned him down despite being unarmed and waving a white flag. Two of his other sons did escape, but the militia captured and hanged them. Then the US Army gets involved, allowing Brown to surrender. Your sons are dead, the slaves are still in chains and now the Army was descending on you and the men you led. He wanted to die during the battle, but during the Army's intervention, they captured him alive.

While in jail, a friend of his got arrested on purpose for drunken brawling. He offered to break John Brown out of jail, but Brown was determined not to do so. He declined the opportunity and wrote a letter to his wife and remaining children. He vouched to be a martyr for the Abolitionist cause. The U.S. would hang Brown and some of his militia cohorts for their violent actions.

Wilson, J. G.; Fiske, J., eds. (1900). "Lovejoy, Elijah Parish" . Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. New York: D. Appleton. pp. 34–35. "Dimmock Funeral To-day". St. Louis Globe-Democrat. November 20, 1909. Archived from the original on June 7, 2021. Retrieved June 7, 2021.

St. Louis Marriage Index, 1804-76. St. Louis, Missouri: St. Louis Genealogical Society, 1999 Van Ravenswaay, Charles (1991). St. Louis: An Informal History of the City and Its People, 1764-1865. Missouri History Museum. pp. 276–277, 279–280.

Finkelman, Paul (Spring 2011). "A Look Back at John Brown". Prologue Magazine. Vol. 43, no. 1. Archived from the original on June 23, 2016. Retrieved September 11, 2021.

Hinton, Richard J. (1894). John Brown and his men; with some account of the roads they traveled to reach Harper's Ferry. Boston: Funk & Wagnalls. Archived from the original on May 25, 2021. Retrieved January 25, 2021. "John Brown and the Harpers Ferry Raid". West Virginia Archives and History. Archived from the original on January 11, 2008. Retrieved January 11, 2008., wvculture.org; accessed August 29, 2015.

Brown, John (December 10, 1859) [November 8, 1859]. "Brown's letter to his wife". United States Police Gazette. Vol. 2, no. 82. p. 2.

War was a fickle thing in the 19th Century. Today, many Western nations vie for a Professional Army. Back in that day, the war would mean the conscription of every able-bodied man. This is when Black men were considered people on paper, but not enough to be treated as such. No need to fear, in the United States there was a way out of being conscripted.

Either A. you find a replacement.

or B. $300 to support the war effort. Doesn't sound too bad until you apply inflation. $300 in the 1860s would be $10,000 today. Yeah, because we all have $10k lying around, right?

Despite this blatant attempt to kill off the poor, the Union didn't have the numbers to continue the war. That is until they noticed a bunch of Irish immigrants trying to escape Britain. So that was another group of immigrants they could pull from. The recruiters go as far as to recruit Irish immigrants fresh off the boat. Cartoonish I know.

The Union would use the Irish brigades of recruits as cannon fodder, taking a bulk of the casualties. Irish families would hear of this back in their respective Northern states. The families were becoming aware of the cannon fodder mentality that Union had for the Irish. Either Britain was trying to starve them out or the U.S. sent them into a meat grinder. When the U.S. had the nerve to conscript more Irish, many riots broke out across the North. Unfortunately, the U.S. was able to deflect this riot.

Many newspapers published articles blaming Black Americans for the Civil War. The Civil War started over the Southern issue of preserving slavery. However, the newspapers wouldn't stop publishing defamatory articles about Black Americans. They also wouldn't stop publishing how Blacks are stealing jobs from the Irish. That if the Civil War were to end, many Black Americans would move North to steal jobs from them. This isn't like today where you could verify or research the subject matter. The only sort of media you were able to consume was within your local area. So if your news press was printing out racist garbage, that's all you consumed. And for those that only consume vitriolic garbage, I'll present you with this example.

So if you're consuming nothing but articles that instigate hatred that will happen. The media was free to publish articles condemning interracial marriage. Like media is free to label LGBTQ+ functions as pedophilic today. Despite the atrocious nature of these incidents today, those were all isolated incidents.

The Irish riots on a larger scale. Many businesses were burned to the ground. Some people were lynched or beaten to the ground with clubs and bricks. When you published nothing but vitriol against a group of people, are you surprised? Some people feign surprise, but these people know the power of the media. This is why they continue falsely branding the LGBTQ+ as pedophile-friendly. This is despite politicians like a Matt Gaetz investigation involving human trafficking. Or despite figures like Matt Walsh who emphasizes a girl's fertility at 16. Expressing frustration at the current age of consent. These are the kind of people that instigate violence against minority groups.

The Irish Draft Riots are the kind of violence that these bastards are aiming for. It worked in favor of the Union because they were able to continue the Civil War for another two years. Because of this riot, Landlords evicted their black tenants fearing violence. So Landlords had sent black people to be brutalized by a mob to cover their asses... This riot was also used as a justification to keep white and black populations separate. Again, the media had perpetrated this violence, but it was used as a justification.

Li, D. K. (2022, September 14). Michigan man who killed his wife went down a 'rabbit hole' of conspiracy theories after Trump's 2020 loss, daughter says. NBCNews.com. Retrieved December 7, 2022, from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michigan-man-killed-wife-went-rabbit-hole-conspiracy-theories-trumps-2-rcna47701

Hasanabi. (2022, October 5). Shocked that Matt Walsh is interested in impregnating 16 year olds. pic.twitter.com/q8s66ebyvq. Twitter. Retrieved December 7, 2022, from https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1577716649116852224

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-passes-civil-war-conscription-act https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/the-irish-brigade

Harris, Leslie M. (2003). In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626–1863. University of Chicago Press. pp. 279–88. ISBN 0226317757.

At the end of the Civil War, the United States had no choice but to capitulate, right? The war was over slavery, so slavery would finally be abolished, right? As per usual, Congress had somehow sidestepped the real problem. By side-stepping the real problem, it paved a way for more problems. Here's what the death of 1 Million Americans and 2 Million Traitors brought us.

15th Amendment: Passed by Congress on February 26, 1869, and ratified on February 3, 1870. The 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote.

14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

So in the end…the Union didn’t fight to abolish slavery. It fought to monopolize it. I wish this was a joke... It would be nice if we were just on a long-running episode of Punk'd.

The Founders and Slavery: Little Ventured, Little Gained, p. 427, [ of representation."

Tremain, Mary (1892). Slavery in the District of Columbia; the policy of Congress and the struggle for abolition.

University of Nebraska Department of History and Economics Papers. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Boston slave riot, and trial of Anthony Burns.

Fetridge and Company. 1854. p. 5. Retrieved April 26, 2013. Stevens, Charles (1856). Anthony Burns: A History. Boston, Massachusetts: John P. Jewett and Company.

Linder, Douglas O. (2019). "The (Fugitive Slave) Trials of Anthony Burns: An Account". www.famous-trials.com. Retrieved 2020-11-22.

Linder, Douglas O. (2019). "Orders of President Franklin Pierce in the Anthony Burns Affair (1854)". www.famous-trials.com. Retrieved 2020-11-22.

Van Ravenswaay, Charles (1991). St. Louis: An Informal History of the City and Its People, 1764-1865. Missouri History Museum. pp. 276–277, 279–280.

Finkelman, Paul (Spring 2011). "A Look Back at John Brown". Prologue Magazine. Vol. 43, no. 1. Archived from the original on June 23, 2016. Retrieved September 11, 2021.

"John Brown and the Harpers Ferry Raid". West Virginia Archives and History. Archived from the original on January 11, 2008. Retrieved January 11, 2008., wvculture.org; accessed August 29, 2015.

Brown, John (December 10, 1859) [November 8, 1859]. "Brown's letter to his wife". United States Police Gazette. Vol. 2, no. 82. p. 2.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/congress-passes-civil-war-conscription-act https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/the-irish-brigade

Harris, Leslie M. (2003). In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626–1863. University of Chicago Press. pp. 279–88. ISBN 0226317757.

3 notes · View notes

richcaminiti · 7 months ago

Text

Welcome to The Pass!

That is the name of the new novel I had the pleasure of Co-Authoring with long time friend and school mate, Allan Krummenacker. Together we managed to create a different type of supernatural novel. Well, rather than me trying to explain it, why don't you read what Kirkus Reviews has to say!

Find it at Amazon and see for yourself!

1 note · View note

natinalpartisan · 1 year ago

Text

The Emerald Enigma: Unraveling Deadeye's Disguise - A Historic Civil War Mystery

In "The Emerald Enigma: Unraveling Deadeye's Disguise - A Historic Civil War Mystery," delves into the captivating world of Irish soldiers in the American Civil War. Amidst the chaos of battle, a peculiar figure emerges known as Deadeye, a skilled marksman with a secret past. As suspicions grow, an intrepid detective, driven by curiosity and justice, embarks on a perilous journey to expose Deadeye's true identity. Set against the backdrop of war-torn America, this enthralling historical mystery takes readers on a thrilling rollercoaster of intrigue, espionage, and unexpected alliances. Prepare to unravel the enigma of Deadeye's disguise as the past and present collide in a quest for truth.

0 notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 5 months ago

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 3, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 04, 2024

And on July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, declaring: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” For all the fact that the congressmen got around the sticky little problem of Black and Indigenous enslavement by defining “men” as “white men,” and for all that it never crossed their minds that women might also have rights, the Declaration of Independence was an astonishingly radical document. In a world that had been dominated by a small class of rich men for so long that most people simply accepted that they should be forever tied to their status at birth, a group of upstart legislators on the edges of a continent declared that no man was born better than any other.

America was founded on the radical idea that all men are created equal. What the founders declared self-evident was not so clear eighty-seven years later, when southern white men went to war to reshape America into a nation in which African Americans, Indigenous Americans, Chinese, and Irish were locked into a lower status than whites. In that era, equality had become a “proposition,” rather than “self-evident.”

“Four score and seven years ago,” Abraham Lincoln reminded Americans, “our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” In 1863, Lincoln explained, the Civil War was “testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.” It did, of course. The Confederate rebellion failed. The United States endured, and Americans began to expand the idea that all men are created equal to include Black men, men of color, and eventually women. But just as in the 1850s, we are now, once again, facing a rebellion against our founding principle, as a few people seek to reshape America into a nation in which certain people are better than others. The men who signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, pledged their “Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] sacred Honor” to defend the idea of human equality. Ever since then, Americans have sacrificed their own fortunes, honor, and even their lives, for that principle. Lincoln reminded Civil War Americans of those sacrifices when he urged the people of his era to “take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Words to live by in 2024.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#July 4 #Heather Cox Richardson #Letters From An American #Declaration of Independence #the Confederacy

18 notes · View notes

fictionadventurer · 2 years ago

Text

Every time I think I'm tired of these guys and their endless rivalries, I learn about another crazy facet of the political system of the time and I get obsessed all over again.

You've got the chaos of 1840-1860, where slavery's increasingly becoming the all-important issue. The Whig Party is fracturing over it and turning into a bunch of tiny little one-issue parties that split the Northern vote. The only reason the South isn't seceding is because the chaos in the North keeps Southern-sympathizing Democratic presidents in power. By the time the 1860 election rolls around, the tiny little Northern parties have finally coalesced into the Republican Party, whose one issue is opposing slavery, and the Democrats are fracturing to back three separate presidential candidates. This allows the North to finally get a Republican in the White House, upon which the South immediately throws a tantrum and bails.

Which then transitions us to the political climate of the Civil War, where the war effort is vastly complicated by the fact that you've got to keep a jillion tiny little factions happy to prevent the country from splintering further. You've got the slave-holding border states who need to be placated so they don't decide to secede. You've got abolitionists who want to make the end of slavery the prime object of the war, which would be a great way to send all those border states straight into the arms of the Confederacy. You've got German-Americans and Irish-Americans and a bunch of different ethnic groups who all want representation among the high-ranking officers of the war. Within the Republican Party itself, you've got former Whigs and Know-Nothings and Radical Republicans and Free Soilers and anti-slavery Democrats who all agree that slavery is bad, but disagree about the best way to get rid of it, plus they all retain vastly different political beliefs from their former party associations. Plus, there are still some pro-Union Democrats you have to deal with, who also splinter among themselves into War Democrats and Peace Democrats who disagree on whether we should continue this horrific war or sue for peace.

And then there's the Confederate politics. You have Davis, the so-called President-General who'd rather be leading troops and hates politicking so much that he'll allegedly cross the street when he sees a Congressman coming rather than risk talking to him and be accused of currying political favor. He's dealing with a Congress that's essentially the Anti-Davis Party, because it's made up of a bunch of men who thought they should have been president (and I cannot explain just how hilarious that is to me). They're uniting under their belief that slavery should be preserved, and yet by the end of the war they're considering emancipation efforts in a last-ditch attempt convince France or England to help them out. They seceded because of one issue and they're willing to throw that away rather than admit defeat.

The chaos just keeps going. It's a never-ending series of high-drama rabbit holes to jump down. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. Politics nowadays is crazy, but Civil War politics are crazier, plus we have the distance of history that makes it fun to just sit back with a bag of popcorn and watch the insanity unfold.

#history is awesome #presidential talk #i've reached the point of watching 2012 cspan videos to satisfy my curiosity if you were wondering how my day is going #the mosaic book made a mention of how davis' son died during the war just like lincoln's did #which intensified my desire to learn more about davis as a politician #and the comparison was even more fun than i could have imagined #love to see two old guys sit on a stage and judge long-dead politicians

93 notes · View notes

dontforgetukraine · 5 months ago

Text

To understand Ukraine better, think about Ireland

What analogy would help American Catholics understand the situation in Ukraine?

Perhaps we should think about Ireland.

Like Ukraine, Ireland was dominated for more than 200 years by a huge imperial neighbor. Britain in Ireland. Russia in Ukraine. Both nations disappeared from political maps for more than two centuries.

Ireland got its independence from Britain in 1921 after 230 years of domination. Ukraine was finally free of Russian (Soviet) domination in 1991, after more than nearly 300 years of domination. Ukraine had the added problem of more than one colonial ruler, with Poland and Lithuania and Austria in the west, the Ottoman Turks in the south, and the Russians in the east.

Ukraine is a huge country, with relatively level topography, in the middle of Europe. It has been overrun with invaders since the Mongols invaded in the 13th century from the east. Poland and Lithuania dominated Ukraine in the west. In 1686, the Treaty of Eternal Peace between the Polish/Lithuanian confederation and tsarist Russia divided Ukraine in two, with everything east of the Dnieper River and Kyiv going to the Russians. So, beginning in the 1690s Russia dominated eastern Ukraine. They did their best to eclipse Ukrainian culture and referred condescendingly to Ukrainians and "Little Russians." Even the name "Ukraine" is from the Russian perspective. It means "borderland" — and the border is from Moscow's perspective.

Language is an important part of identity. The indigenous languages of Ireland and Ukraine were both suppressed and supplanted by their colonial rulers. Ireland's educated elite spoke English and were sent to England to study. Ukraine's educated elite spoke the languages of their cultural masters: Polish in the west, Russian in the east. Under the tsars and the Soviets, the elites from Ukraine were sent to Russia to study and were expected to become cultural Russians. Today the Ukrainian language is making a comeback, even in the east. In Ukraine, I've met several Russian-speaking Ukrainians who now refuse to speak the Russian language. And Ukrainian is not a dialect of Russian, any more than Spanish is a dialect of Italian. They are distinct.

Both Irish and Ukrainian cultures were preserved in the rural areas. In the countryside, people spoke their native languages at home, in church and among themselves. But in business and in cities they spoke the language of their colonizers, English and Russian. That seems to have been especially true in Ukraine.

While neither Ireland nor Ukraine governed themselves for more than 200 years, their sons were drafted to fight the wars of their colonizers. The people of both nations generally remained poor, while the agriculture of both nations fed their rulers.

Both nations were visited by unnecessary starvation, despite their rich land and agriculture. Ireland had the Great Hunger of the 19th century, brought on by the potato blight and land rents. It killed a million people and sent another million into exile.

In Ukraine, the breadbasket of Europe, at least 4 million Ukrainians starved to death in the 1930s under Joseph Stalin during the Holodomor ("death by hunger"). It was totally unnecessary, brought on by Stalin's policy of "collectivization" of farming and persecution of Ukraine's Culak farmers, who were perceived as anti-Bolshevik. Russian police entered Ukrainian homes and literally took the food from families.

Eastern Ukraine was severely depopulated by starvation, war and political purges by the end of World War II. Russian speakers were brought in to repopulate eastern Ukraine. (That's similar to what the English did in Northern Ireland when they brought in Scots.) This "Russification" changed the ethnic makeup of eastern Ukraine.

World War II was especially cruel in Ukraine. Between 7 and 8 million Ukrainians died in the war; at least 5 million were civilians. The population of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic was 41 million in 1940 and 36 million people in 1950.

Millions of people have emigrated from both Ireland and Ukraine. After World War II, many Ukrainians came to the U.S. and Canada. The Ukrainian Catholic churches that dot our landscape today are testament to their presence here. A new exodus took place from Ukraine in 2022, when about 6 million people left the country as refugees in just a few months. They settled mostly in western Europe. The population of Ukraine had been 41 million before Russia's full-scale invasion began Feb. 25, 2022. Now it is estimated at about 36 million. (No one is sure because a census is impossible to do in wartime.)

Both Ireland and Ukraine have seen severe religious persecution. In Ireland, the British crown banned Roman Catholicism under Irish penal laws. In Ukraine, under the Soviets, all religion — except Orthodox Christianity under the Moscow patriarch — was banned. The state was officially atheist during the Soviet era, 1921 to 1991. Today, as a result of Russia's invasion, the number of followers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is declining and the independent Orthodox Church of Ukraine is growing. Whole parishes are leaving the Moscow patriarch. A July 2022 survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found only 1 of 25 of Ukrainians (4%) identified with Moscow Patriarchate, a considerable drop from nearly 1 of 5 (18%) in June 2021.

Catholics, of both Eastern and Western rites, saw their churches, seminaries, monasteries, convents, schools and universities seized and closed during the Soviet period. Many church leaders had to go into exile. We visited one formerly Latin Rite church in Lviv, built by Polish Jesuits in the 1700s, which had been a book warehouse under the Soviet regime.

The war seems to have promoted the growth and independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It was recognized as a self-governing (autocephalous) church only in 2018, by the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul). That resulted in the patriarch of Moscow excommunicating the patriarch of Constantinople.

Why is this important for American Catholics? Because I have heard a fair amount of Russian disinformation from American Catholics after our two visits to Ukraine in the last two years.

People ask: Isn't Ukraine really just part of Russia? Answer: No. Not willingly.

Isn't the Ukrainian language just a dialect of Russian? No. It is a distinct Slavic language.

Wasn't Crimea always Russian? No. Catherine the Great seized it from the Ottoman Turks in 1783. Stalin deported most of the local Tatars to concentration camps in the 1930s.

History matters. It helps us to understand the past and deal with the present.

In 1991 Ukrainians took their rightful place among the peoples of the world. It has been a centuries-long struggle to be free of domination by their imperial neighbors. From what I have seen, they are absolutely determined that they will not again disappear from the maps of the world.

#Ukraine #Russia #Ireland #catholicism #America #catholic #holodomor #article #the great hunger #potato famine #russification #Mod note: disappointed they didn't mention the other hypothesis that the name Ukraine means land or country in Ukrainian #But the comparison is interesting and useful at least

8 notes · View notes

st-just · 5 months ago

Text

So obviously the fact that Irish/Catholic/Irish Catholic people were considered suspect at best and subhuman at worst was the bigger part of the issue, but man the Adventurers Act feels like something you'd write if you specifically wanted to make any sort of diplomatic compromise impossible.

(For context: at the start of 1st English Civil War Parliament funded the raising of armies in part by a) notionally seizing the lands of every Irish notable involved in the Confederate rebellion and b) selling those lands to the highest bidder, to be redeemed when the rebellion was crushed)

13 notes · View notes

tedwardremus · 4 months ago

Text

Mel's Favorite Lighthouses

To say goodbye to TheLightHousesTale url here is some of my favorite lighthouses

(follow @lighthousetale for more lighthouse content in the future)

Old Point Loma Lighthouse - Obviously, I have to represent my hometown on this list. While in operation, the lighthouse had the highest elevation of any lighthouse in the United States. It was too foggy in that location though so they built another lighthouse in 1891 at lower elevation.

Fastnet Lighthouse - The tallest lighthouse in Ireland. I am fond of lighthouses on jagged rocks that look impossible to get to. The best of lighthouse vibes.

Blacksod Lighthouse - Another Irish lighthouse (Ireland has great lighthouses). Weather observations in June 1944 by the Blacksod lighthousekeepers caused the Normandy landings to be postponed because even though Ireland was neutral during the war it provided the British with weather reports. We love lighthouses that helped us beat the Nazis.

Thomas Point Shoal Light - The most recognized lighthouse in Maryland. It's shaped like a hexagon which is cool.

Sidi Ifni Lighthouse- I don't need to say much about this beauty. It is gorgeous.

Point Lookout Lighthouse - 8,000 Confederates died there during the American Civil War. Love a haunted lighthouse.

St. Simons Lighthouse - Another haunted lighthouse. After an argument the lighthouse assistant shot and killed the lighthouse keeper.

Tourlitis Lighthouse - This just looks like a magical lighthouse from a fairytale. A Disney princess lives there.

Tower of Hercules - lighthouse built by Romans. Myth has it that Hercules buried the head of Geryon underneath the land that lighthouse now stands on.

4 notes · View notes

stairnaheireann · 1 year ago

Text

#OTD in 1862 – The Irish Brigade suffered over 60% casualties at the Battle of Antietam at an area that came to be known as Bloody Lane.

At the Battle of Antietam, the Irish Brigade led its division in attacking the infamous Bloody Lane. In preparation for the deadly work ahead, Father William Corby, one of the brigade’s chaplains and future president of Notre Dame, rode down the firing line and administered a general rite of absolution to the men. Thomas Meagher advanced to the crest of a hill overlooking a brigade of North…

View On WordPress

#69th New York Militia #American Civil War #Bloody Lane #Captain McGee #Confederates #Father William Corby #Fighting 69th #Gen. Israel Richardson #The Battle of Antietam #The Battle of Antietam Monument #The Irish Brigade #Thomas Meagher #Unions

9 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 2 years ago

Note

I appreciate the counter-revisionist spirit of the Puritans but it doesn't fully acknowledge the bad with the good, right? The Puritans were genocidal towards Native Americans (during Metacomet's War), supported slavery, and then there's the brutal campaign in Ireland under Cromwell that ended with many poor Irish reduced to indentured servitude.

So I think this is a very fair critique. If I'm going to take the position that we have to acknowledge that tumblr's faves the Vikings and Caribbean pirates were heavily implicated in slavery, I think it's incumbent on me to recognize the intense violence that was also part of the Puritan legacy. Because I think there's a direct line that can be drawn towards the violence of King Metacomet's War, the violence of Cromwell's campaign in Ireland, the violence of the English Civil War, and the violence of the wars of religion on the European continent, in part because in some cases you literally had veterans of one conflict fighting in another, and also because I think it points to the ways in which these conflicts fit a rather conventional pattern of 17th century warfare. This is not to say that the Puritans' actions were moral, but rather that they weren't unusual.

First, these wars tended to involve targeted attacks on civilian populations, the tendency for both sides to engage in escalating reprisal atrocities (this is not meant as a minimization tactic: if you look at the actual conduct of these wars, there are no good guys as pretty much everyone gives into the temptation to massacre civilians in revenge), and high casualty rates.

Second, they tended to involve seizure of land and the simultaneous pushing out of existing inhabitants and intended settlement of co-ethnics/co-religionists. These wars were intended to reshape borders and frontiers in ways that we today would consider ethnic cleansing.

Third, they were also rather complicated conflicts. Metacomet's War wasn't just a Puritan attack on the Wampanoags, but a complex affair of the Puritans and nine different First Nations tribes who fought both for and against the Puritans and one another - indeed, arguably two of the biggest victors of Metacomet's War were the Mohawk and the Wabanaki. In Ireland, you had the Catholic Confederation who had originally rebelled against Charles I and warred against the largely Scottish Ulster Protestants but who also allied with Charles against first the rebellious Scottish Covenanters and then the English Parliamentarians, you had Scottish Covenenanters who sent armies into Ireland to protect and revenge their kinsmen, you had a Royalist army under the command of an Irish lord who was tasked with putting down the Confederation and then recruiting the Confederation, and then you had Cromwell's New Model Army. (This is why, for example, most of the victims of the massacre of Drogheda were English Royalist soldiers rather than Irish Catholic civilians.)

Finally, a couple points about slavery. First, it is true that slavery was practiced in Puritan New England, but unlike in Virginia, New England was a society with slaves rather than a slave society. Hence why you had odd scenarios, whereby in New England slaves had the right to jury trials - a loophole that enlaved people would exploit starting in the mid-18th century to launch freedom suits by which they would petition the court for manumission.

Second, I would strongly advise that you be very, very careful about the topic of Irish indentured servitude, because the "Irish slaves myth" discourse devolves very quickly into white supremacist propaganda, and there is a nasty tendency for Irish republicans to be extremely cavalier with racist tropes. For example, Sean O'Callaghan, the author of To Hell Or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland not only conflated indentured servitude with chattel slavery, but invented a brand new historical libel when he claimed that Irish women sent to Barbados were systematically forcibly bred to African men. (Incidentally, for some misbegotten reason Wikipedia's page on the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland cites O'Callaghan as a source.) Despite the fact that this obviously trades in racist myths of black men as sexual predators, other authors repeated the claim and then it went viral online.

Not only is the conflation of temporary indentured servitude with chattel slavery something that a lot of white people use to minimize the history of anti-black racism similar to how narratives of immigrant struggles and upward mobility are used to minimize the impact of slavery and racism (essentially, we white ethnic group suffered and got over it, why can't you), but it also becomes this vector for online radicalization by white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy theorists as memes circulate on social media forums - with the hope being that you gradually draw people from Facebook (and Tumblr?) to Infowars to Stormfront.

#history #puritans #metacomet's war #english civil war #irish rebellion of 1641 #oliver cromwell

57 notes · View notes

fumblingmusings · 2 years ago

Text

You ready for the most niche thing ever but hey this is what we do here you just have to bear with me as I take 3,000 years to get to the point because learning more about the repeal of Britain's Corn Laws in the 19th Century the more it's just a microcosm of that oh so blessed North American Triangle of Britain and America making deals and Canada going hey wait a second dynamic. Poor Mattie playing second fiddle at... nearly every interaction involving these two.

So. Corn. The Corn Laws were passed after the Napoleonic Wars by Britain to keep prices high for domestic producers, of course making lovely profits for landowners, rather than the farmers who actually grew the stuff. It also prioritised colonial grains, so Canada got a boon with its wheat and flour. Nice example of Mercantilism right there.

The problem wassssssss by the 1840s you have the Irish Famine, food prices are too gosh dang high, no-one has disposable income because factory owners are cutting wages wherever they can, and it's so blatantly obvious that this system only profits the top 10% of British Society. There's no shortage of food, it just costs too fucking much. Ireland is starving and the government is sitting on their hands being useless.

A lot of pressure later, Free Trade is favoured over Mercantilism, and the Corn Laws are dropped. Britain can start importing wheat, barley and other cereals form the cheapest supplier: the US. This is not coincidental that the main MP pushing for their repeal - Richard Cobden - was a massive fan of the USA, doing a lot to try and get the two countries to be friendlier to each other. He subscribed to the 'the more economically entangled you are with another country the less likely you are to fight them' which... has its truths.

So... cheap bread good? So that's one thing.

EXCEPT Canada got completely screwed over since they had gotten priority for any externally grown grain for most of the 1840s - causing a bubble in their market. So when the Corn Laws got repealed and it was open season to the cheapest supplier much of Canada's businesses went bankrupt and following series of unfortunate events semi related to corn people burnt Montreal's Parliament and the capital moved to Toronto and it gave yet another push towards Confederation in the 1860s.

So that's a second thing.

It also kind of screwed over the domestic UK farming industry as the age old 'why buy domestic expensive if foreign cheap?' came into play and another wave of emigrants move to the US and the Dominions in the second half of the 19th century because being an agricultural labourer ain't what it used to be (like 100,000 of people with those jobs 'vanish' from the census within ten years, going to the city of abroad). The fact that, compared to 1830 where Britain imported just 2% of its grain, to the 1880s where it was 45%, (65% for wheat)... Uh-oh.

So that's a third thing.

ALTHOUGH, this did have another side affect of ensuring Britain could not get involved in the American Civil War like okay yes the South was very much banking on the need for cotton to push Britain to intercede but psych! The working class people of Lancashire are braver than any Confederate solider and refuse to work with cotton picked by enslaved peoples and would literally rather starve. Especially as, at that point 40% of the wheat people ate came from Northern US states. What's more important? Bread or cotton?

So... that's a fourth thing.

Anyway. Corn.

Sorry I had to make use of an out of date meme.

I'm just fascinated by how domestic actions can still massively impact other nations... Arthur doing the right thing for his people by lowering bread prices indirectly fucks over Matthew but also protects Alfred down the line. Like... urGH! You know?

#follow me for more stupid not entirely correct history ramblings with the hetalia lens slapped on #hetalia #op #historical hetalia #hws england #hws canada #hws america #headcanon

63 notes · View notes

weirdestbooks · 4 months ago

Text

The Shot Heard Around the World Chapter 4

Sugar Ain't So Sweet (Wattpad | Ao3)

Table of Contents | Prev | Next

April 5, 1764

Thirteen walked into his room and saw Quebec. Thirteen crossed his arms as Quebec jumped up from where he sat on the bed.

"Thirteen! Papa wants to talk to you." He said, "Where were you anyways?"

‘Thankfully, I'm not teaching British East Florida English.’

‘He’s trying, that’s all we asked.’

“Where is Father?" Thirteen asked, avoiding the question. His father frowned upon his relationship with his Irish uncle, and Thirteen knew that if Britain found out they had been spending time together again, he would be in a lot of trouble.

Last time, Thirteen was so bruised that he had trouble getting out of bed.

‘That’s why we’re sneaky about it now. We can’t get in trouble if we aren’t caught.’

‘I still feel bad about lying, though.’

"He's in his study. He wants to inform you of some new acts created by Parliament that are going to affect you since you were…acting weird about the last act that he made for you," Quebec explained.

Thirteen nodded as he internally groaned. He guessed he didn’t get away with that questioning as well as he thought he had.

‘What’s with the new acts anyway? Britain doesn’t normally make this many at once.’

‘Yeah, normally he just ignores us–when it comes to governing. This is new.’

‘It’ll be fine. We just keep our mouths shut, nod, and get out.’

Thirteen thanked Quebec and then walked down the hall, heading to his father’s study, wondering what would be introduced in this new act. Was it a tax? Something like the Proclamation Line? Reorganization of the colonies?

‘I hope it’s not the last one.’

The last one worried Thirteen and reminded him too much of his now-deceased daughter, New England Confederation. Thirteen missed New England, although less than he used to. His people had moved on, which meant he had to also.

Thirteen reached his father's study and knocked on the door. Father didn't like people barging into his study, which was a private place for him.

"Who is it?" He called out.

"Thirteen. Quebec said you needed me?" Thirteen responded.

"I do. Please come in." Thirteen opened the door and walked into his father's study. It had a large desk in the center, and one of the walls had a large bookshelf that went from floor to ceiling. The wall behind his father had a massive map of the known world, and the last wall had a larger window that overlooked the garden, where Thirteen could see his Uncle Wales and Uncle England talking to one another.

Talking was generous. Thirteen decided as he processed the expressions of the figures. His Uncle Wales looked like he wanted to take off even more of Uncle England’s fingers.

‘I wonder what they are fighting about?’

Thirteen’s father was reading over some papers, perhaps the legislation Quebec had told Thirteen about.

"Hello, Thirteen. Where were you? Quebec couldn't find you and assumed you might have been in the colonies," Father asked.

“I was.” Thirteen lied, careful to keep his voice even. Thirteen did enjoy walking through different cities in his land and talking to his people. They came from many places, and their opinions were always interesting.

‘Interesting is a nice way to put some of those opinions.’

"Parliament passed another act, as Quebec should have told you." Father began. Thirteen nodded.

"He did. What's this act about?" Thirteen asked, hoping that the question wasn’t too much. Thankfully, it seemed to please his father, who smiled at him gently.

‘Please don't be reorganizing the colonies.’

"The act will help prevent smuggling, as the smuggling of sugar and molasses has become extreme, which will enforce the Navigation Acts. It will lower the previous tax rates but enforce the collection of duties. Lumber and iron will also be added to the materials you can only trade with me. It's called the American Revenue Act of 1764. The act will help us pay back the debts from the Seven Years War." Father explained.

‘Oh great, it’s affecting smuggling.’

Thirteen hoped that any new act would not affect smuggling, which was common. Since the Molasses Act forbade importing goods from other countries, smuggling became a big deal, as his people didn’t care about the law.

‘Yeah, Britain’s laws are the source of much smuggling.’

Forcing smuggling to stop was going to make people incredibly mad. And another thing they could only trade with Father? This was going to affect many businesses negatively, which was going to increase anger.

Thirteen was worried. If his people decided to do anything stupid, he could get into much trouble with his father.

Especially because Thirteen knew he could not sit and take laws like this for long without snapping.

‘Be careful then.’

"Why are my people paying back the debts?" Thirteen asked carefully.

‘Yeah, why can’t he do that? Or our siblings?’

"Since a large portion of the war was spent protecting you and your people, Parliament decided it was best for you to help us pay back war debts," Father told me. Thirteen couldn't believe it. He knew money was spent protecting his people, but money was also poured into invading other colonies and territories.

‘Yeah, why do we have to pay it all back?’

‘This isn’t fair!’

There was also a post-war depression in his land. This would negatively affect his people, and they wouldn't like it. And didn't this tax violate constitutional rights? Thirteen was being taxed to raise revenue for the crown.

But…maybe that was an exaggeration. You could argue that it is a tax to regulate trade. Thirteen was probably overly cautious about this. It might not be as bad when it’s implemented.

"Thank you for informing me of this tax," Thirteen told his father, not wanting to cause an argument. When Thirteen is upset, he tends to say things he doesn't mean because he doesn't want to mess things up.

‘Mess things up? You can’t just sit here all day and do nothing if you think it could hurt you!’

"Thank you for understanding. I remember the protests that happened when we introduced the Molasses Act. Hopefully, with that act already in place, protests to this one should be small or nonexistent." his father remarked as Thirteen left his study, a pit of fear growing in his stomach.

‘And what would you do if they weren't?’

━─━────༺༻────━─━

September 1, 1764

The New England portion of Thirteen’s land hadn't responded very well to the Sugar Act. Thirteen had been to a town meeting in Boston, where a man named James Otis had discussed the complaint of being taxed without representation in Parliament. Another man named Samuel Adams had joined him in this sentiment. James Otis also wanted the colonies to unite and argued that since there was one personification for all Thirteen Colonies, it meant they were destined to become one.

Thirteen knew that was odd. For some reason, he represented multiple colonies, not just one. Maybe it had something to do with…Thirteen brushed a hand over his hidden scars, thinking back to long ago.

‘That might be the reason.’

‘But who knows?’

Unfortunately for James Otis’ plans of unification, the southern colonies were not affected by this tax and didn't see a need to protest like the northern ones did. However, Massachusetts had created a five-person Committee of Correspondence that was in charge of exchanging information regarding the Sugar Act.

‘Even if the South refuses to take any action, that will not stop the North from taking lots of action.’

‘Another reason there should be separate colonies, like New France and New Spain are.’

‘Thirteen, are you sure you’re the only personification for the Thirteen Colonies?’

Thirteen brushed aside those thoughts, not wanting to deal with them. Thirteen had other things on his mind.

Thirteen wanted to go to the protests and listen to Samuel Adams and James Otis share their opinions with others. But he was terrified of how his father would react if he found out Thirteen was doing that, so instead, Thirteen was in his room, staring at the wall as he fiddled with his fingers.

"Thirteen, can I speak to you in my study?" Thirteen’s father then asked, startling Thirteen out of his thoughts.

‘Oh well, that sounds ominous.’

‘Did something bad happen to our people?’

‘No, that’s impossible! We would have felt it or heard about it sooner!’

‘It might have something to do with the protests.’

Thirteen nodded as he stood up from bed and followed his father to his study. Britain sat in his chair, and Thirteen tried to push aside his growing nerves.

"Parliament has passed a new act regarding the Thirteen Colonies," his father began. Another one? Thirteen was shocked. For the most part, his father spent the last hundred years letting Thirteen take care of himself, so why was he trying so hard to govern Thirteen now?

Sure, the Proclamation Act was supposed to prevent wars with the native people, but the British government had already promised land to settlers pass the line and went back on their promise.

‘And that’s why no one is following it.’

Sure, the Sugar Act was supposed to prevent smuggling, but smuggled goods were important to Thirteen’s economy, and losing the goods brought in could hurt his economy. Even though smuggling was bad, Thirteen was basically banned from trading with any country other than his father, no matter how cheap other countries sold their products.

‘It’s stupid! Of course, we aren’t following it!’

"This act extends the restrictions from the Currency Act of 1751 to all thirteen colonies, although it does ease the banning of printing your own money. However, your colonists will not be allowed to pay off their debts with your paper currency, as it is too hard for us to regulate. It will be considered worthless. Parliament and I think your currency should be based on the pound sterling. This act will also establish a superior court to the ones in the colonies, which will be used when a person is accused of smuggling or violating the other customs laws."

‘You won’t…we don’t have mines for the material needed to create your money!’

‘We need the paper currency!’

"This is going to be an economic disaster in my land. Declaring paper money worthless? People depend on that!" Thirteen blurted out, unable to explain the many reasons why that was a bad idea. He paused and realized that saying that was not the best idea, as Thirteen bowed his head and flinched back.

‘It’s like he’s trying to make us not like him.’

‘He’s not doing that. He’s trying to help, even if he doesn’t know what he’s talking about!’

Britain’s face tightened in anger, and Thirteen’s fear grew.

"What did you say?" Britain asked barely visible anger in his voice. Thirteen, realizing he would get punished anyway, decided to double down on his point as he threw his arms up into the air.

‘We need to calm down now before we make things worse!’

‘Oh boy, this is going to end badly.’

"That law is stupid! Are you trying to turn my people against yours? This isn't going to end well; you have to see that. We already have a trade deficit with you; our imports cost way more than the exports. People aren't going to trust in trade unless they have something to fall back on, and you’re getting rid of that." Thirteen angrily explained. Without a hard cap, the trade deficit with his father would worsen.

"Thirteen. I thought I raised you better than this." Britain scolded before walking out from behind his desk and hitting Thirteen. Thirteen knew he must have angered his father a lot, as the blow nearly knocked him over and caused Thirteen to bite his tongue, causing blood to flow into his mouth. “You don’t argue with me on things like this. I let your questions slide last time, but I don’t let this slide.”

Thirteen nodded, mouth shut to avoid dripping any blood onto his father’s floor, as he tried to avoid making eye contact with his father.

“To ensure you understand, you and your siblings will be limited to one meal a day. I hope that helps you understand that I am in charge, and no matter what, I know what’s best for you. I’m the country, and you’re just a colony. Understood?” Britain asked, his voice now soft as he laid a gentle hand on Thirteen’s shoulder.

“Yes, Father.” Thirteen answered, placing his hand over his mouth to avoid letting any blood drip out. “I understand.”

Britain smiled and then pushed Thirteen out of the room.

#countryhumans #countryhumans america #countryhumans britain #historical countryhumans #the shot heard around the world by weird #countryhumans 13 colonies

3 notes · View notes