https://www.facebook.com/ThisDayInGoodloveHistory
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jeff-Goodlove/323484214349385
Join me on http://www.linkedin.com/
Jeff Goodlove email address: Jefferygoodlove@aol.com
Surnames associated with the name Goodlove have been spelled the following different ways; Cutliff, Cutloaf, Cutlofe, Cutloff, Cutlove, Cutlow, Godlib, Godlof, Godlop, Godlove, Goodfriend, Goodlove, Gotleb, Gotlib, Gotlibowicz, Gotlibs, Gotlieb, Gotlob, Gotlobe, Gotloeb, Gotthilf, Gottlieb, Gottliebova, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlow, Gutfrajnd, Gutleben, Gutlove
The Chronology of the Goodlove, Godlove, Gottlob, Gottlober, Gottlieb (Germany, Russia, Czech etc.), and Allied Families of Battaile, (France), Crawford (Scotland), Harrison (England), Jackson (Ireland), Jefferson, LeClere (France), Lefevre (France), McKinnon (Scotland), Plantagenets (England), Smith (England), Stephenson (England?), Vance (Ireland from Normandy), Washington, Winch (England, traditionally Wales), including correspondence with George Rogers Clark, and including ancestors William Henry Harrison, Andrew Jackson, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Adams, John Quincy Adams and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Martin Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, U.S. Grant, Benjamin Harrison “The Signer”, Benjamin Harrison, Jimmy Carter, Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, William Taft, John Tyler (10th President), James Polk (11th President)Zachary Taylor, and Abraham Lincoln.
The Goodlove Family History Website:
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/o/o/Jeffery-Goodlove/index.html
The Goodlove/Godlove/Gottlieb families and their connection to the Cohenim/Surname project:
• New Address! http://wwwfamilytreedna.com/public/goodlove/default.aspx
• • Books written about our unique DNA include:
• “Abraham’s Children, Race, Identity, and the DNA of the Chosen People” by Jon Entine.
•
• “ DNA & Tradition, The Genetic Link to the Ancient Hebrews” by Rabbi Yaakov Kleiman, 2004.
Birthdays on March 30…
Jasper Allen
Jane Godlove
Jennifer L. Goodlove
Wallace C. Morris
Ann M. Stickley Goodlove
March 30, 1533: March 30, 1533: – Thomas Cramner appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. [1]
Cranmer was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury, and Convocation immediately declared the King's marriage to Katherine unlawful.[2]
March 30, 1534: In 1534, a new Parliament was summoned, again under Cromwell's supervision, to enact the legislation necessary to formally break England's remaining ties with Rome. Archbishop Cranmer's sentence took statutory form as the Act of Succession, the Dispensations Act reiterated royal supremacy, and the Act for the Submission of the Clergy incorporated into law the clergy's surrender in 1532. On March 30, 1534, Audley gave royal assent to the legislation in the presence of the King.[1][3]
Before the members of both houses returned home on March 30, they were required to swear an oath accepting the Act of Succession, and all the King's subjects were now required to swear to the legitimacy of the marriage and, by implication, to acceptance of the King's new powers and the break from Rome.[4]
March 30, 1564: Mary replies that it is beneath her dignity to marry a mere subject; yet Randolph persists in making fresh representations on this point.
Castelnau de Mauvissière also comes about this time to Scotland, to induce Mary to marry the Duke of Anjou; but, by the advice of her council, she refuses him, as well as all the other foreign suitors
for her hand, (Don Carlos, the Archduke of Austria,the Prince of Conde, and the dukes of Ferrara, Orleans, and Nemours.) [5]
March 30, 1581: Pope Gregory XIII issued a Bull banning the use of Jewish doctors. This did not prevent many popes from using Jews as their personal physicians.[6]
March 30, 1661: Returning to France, Henrietta and Philippe signed their marriage contract at the Palais Royal on March 30, 1661.[7]
March 30, 1771: Ditto--Ditto--Ditto.[8]
GW had called a meeting of the officers of the Virginia Regiment at Winchester on March 4 to report on the trip down the Ohio River that he had made the previous fall (Va. Gaz., P&D, January 31., February 7,., February 14, 1771).
Triplets: the ordinary of James and William Carr Lane at Newgate (no Centreville), Va. [9]
March 30. Walk in the Evening over my three Plantations in the Neck.[10], [11]
March 30, 1774
From George Washington to Valentine Crawford
Sir: You are to proceed without loss of time to your own Settlement on Youghiogany, and there if it is not already done provide such, and so much Provision, as you shall think necessary to take down with you to my Lands on the Ohio. You are also to provide Canoes for transporting of these Provisions. The Tools, and the Workmen.
You are to engage Three good hands as laborers to be employed in this business; you are to get them upon the best terms you can; and have them bound in Articles to serve till the first of December, duly and truly; at the expiration of which term they shall receive their Wages, Provisions and Tools will be found them, but nothing else.
You are also to engage a good Hunter upon the best terms you can, for the purpose of supplying you with provision's. Let him have the Skins, as I suppose he will engage the cheaper for it. Engage him either altogether for Hunting, or to hunt and Work as occasion requires, that there may be no dispute about it afterwards; so in like manner let every Man else know what it is he has to trust to that no disputes may arise there after. And the best way to prevent this is to let all your
hirelings know that they are not to consider this, or that thing as their particular business; but to turn their hands to every thing, as the nature of the business shall require.
As Much depends upon your getting to the Land early, in order that as much ground may be clear'd, and put into Corn as possible before the Season is too far advanced, I do most earnestly request you to delay no time in prosecuting your Trip down. And, that as much Ground as possible may be got in order for Corn, and planted therewith, I would have you delay building and Tenting till the Season is too late for Planting, and employ your whole force in clearing.
Begin this operation at, and on the upper Tract and clear five Acre fields in handsome squares upon every other Lott along the River Bank (leaving the Trees next the River standing, as a safe guard against Freshes and Ice); these Fields may be so near together as to answer small Tenements of about 100 acres in a Lott in case you cannot get them surveyd; in short allow each Lott a breadth of about One hundred Rod upon the River, running back for quantity agreeably to the Plots given you.
The same sized Lots, that is Lots of the same breadth upon the River, may be laid off upon all the other Tracts, and five Acre fields cleard upon every other one as above but after the Season has got too late for Planting Corn, then, at each of
these Fields, Build a House Sixteen feet by 18, with an outside Chimney, the lower part to be of Logs (with diamond Corners) and to be coverd with three feet Shingles; Also Inclose and fence your Corn at this time, or before, if necessary.
You may then, that is, after building Houses to the Fields already Cleared, and fencing them in, carry your clearing, building, and fencing, regularly on together, in the manner above described.
After the time for Planting Corn is Over; in any of the Bottoms you may be at Work in, if there should be any grassy Ponds, or places easily improvd, and draind for Meadow; It may be done, and Inclosed, instead of preping Land for Corn.
Endeavour to get some rare-ripe Corn to carry with you for your last Planting, and replanting. The Corn which you do Plant must be Cultivated; in any manner which may appear most advisabe to you for my Interest.
If you can get, or I should send out, Peach Stones, have them cracked, and the Kernels Planted, as soon as you get to the first Land, and properly Inclose them.
It will be essentially necessary to have all the Work done upon any one Tract, appraisd before you move to the next Tract if it be possible to have it done, such work I mean, as can be injured by Fire or other Accidents; otherwise I may labour
in vain, as I shall have no allowance made for any thing that is not valued. In these appraisements you must let nothing go unnoticed, as it is necessary that every thing should be brought into Acct. that will enhance the price of it.
You should take care to have a Pair of hand Millstones with you, as also a Grindstone, for the benefit of your Tools with proper Pecks.
Keep a regular Acct. of your Tools, and call them over frequently, to see that none are missing; make every Man answerable for such as is put into his care. Keep a regular Acct. also, of the days lost by sickness; for I expect none will be lost by any other mean's; that an allowance may be made for it at Settlement. And keep a regular, and clear acct. of all expences, with proper Vouchers, that matters may be settled without any difficulty at the end of the Service.
As I could wish to have my Lands Rented, if it be possible to do it, you may, if Tenants should offer, engage them upon the Following Terms, to wit, upon a Rent of Three pounds Stir ling (to be discharged in the Currency of the Country at the Exchange prevailing at the time of payment) for each notified which is to be laid of as described on the Plott Leases to be given for three Lives; four years Rent free where no Improvement is made, and two only where there is a House built, and five acres of Land cleard on the Lott. Or, if it will be a greater inducement to Tenants, I will grant Leases for 21 years upon the above Rent, payable in the above manner; which Leases shall be Renewable for ever, upon paying at the end of the first 21 years, Twenty shillings pt. ann.: additional Rent for the next Seven years; and in like manner the Increasd Rent of 20/ Sterlg. pr. Ann for every Seven year's afterwards. But it is to be noted that I will not give Leases for Lives, and Leases for the above Term (renewable) in the same Tract of Land; as it might not be so convenient to have Leases of different Tenures mixd.
As I have pointed out the distance along the Water, for the breadth of each Lott (in measuring of which go strait), and as the course and distance from the River of each Lott is also particularly set down, you cannot be at a loss if you have compass and Chain to lay them off and mark them exactly; the back lines of the Lotts may be markd, or not, just as it suits; the dividing Lines must be markd at all events and an Acct. taken of the Corner Trees in order to insert them in the Leases if any should be given. At the Corner of each Lott, upon the River, blaze a Tree; and with a knife or Chissel, number them in the following manner, viz, at the upper Corner of the first Lott, make the figure 1, at the Corner which divides Lotts No. one and two, make these figures 1/2 at the Corner which divides Lotts No. Two and three make the figures ⅔ and so on with every Lott, by which means the Lotts can always be distinguished the moment they are lookd at, and no mistake can happen.
Build a House, and clear and fence five Acres of Land upon every other Lott, in the manner describd upon the Plat, by which means should any one Person Incline to take two Lotts they may be added together conveniently, and the Improvements will be convenient to both.
I have now mention'd every thing by way of Instruction to you that I can at present recollect; let me conclude then with observing, that this business must even under the greatest good management and Industry be attended with great expence, as
it will be with equal Injustice, if it is neglected; to this I am to add, that, as you are now receiving my Money, your time is not your own; and that every day or hour misapplied, is a loss to me; do not therefore under a belief that, as a
friendship has long subsisted between us, many things may be overlookd in you that would not in another, devote any part of your time to other business; or to amusements; for be assurd, that, in respect to our agreement, I shall consider you in
no other light than as a Man who has engagd his time and Service to conduct and man age my Interest on the Ohio to the best advantage, and shall seek redress if you do not, just as soon from you as an entire stranger.
I wish you health and success, and am &ca.
Note As these Instructions were begun sometime ago, and at a time when I had little doubt of havg. my People movd over the Mountains before the first of April; as also at a time when I had a scheme under contemplation of Importing Palatines, in order to settle on these Lands, which scheme I have now laid aside; those clauses which relate to the turning your whole force towards preparing Land for Corn, may be entirely, or in part, laid aside as Circumstances may direct, and, if there should be any inconsistentcy between the first and latter clauses pursue the directions of the last mentioned.
If you should not receive an Order of Court (from Botetourt) for valuing the Work done on my first Tract, before you move to the Second, have the Work done thereon, appraisd in the best manner you can by Steven's &ca. and an acct. thereof
Sign'd by them, in such a manner as they would swear to, if calld upon.
If it should happen, that you are obligd to wait in your own Neighbourhood for Vessels, Provisions, or on any other acct. let all the People wch you carry out be employd towards forwarding my Mill Work at Gilb'ts Simpson's.[12]
March 30, 1775: Hoping to keep the New England colonies dependent on the British, King George III [13]formally endorses the New England Restraining Act on this day in 1775. The New England Restraining Act required New England colonies to trade exclusively with Great Britain as of July 1. An additional rule would come into effect on July 20, banning colonists from fishing in the North Atlantic.
The British prime minister, Frederick, Lord North, introduced the Restraining Act and the Conciliatory Proposition to Parliament on the same day. The Conciliatory Proposition promised that no colony that met its share of imperial defenses and paid royal officials' salaries of their own accord would be taxed. The act conceded to the colonists' demand that they be allowed to provide the crown with needed funds on a voluntary basis. In other words, Parliament would ask for money through requisitions, not demand it through taxes. The Restraining Act was meant to appease Parliamentary hardliners, who would otherwise have impeded passage of the pacifying proposition.
Unfortunately for North and prospects for peace, he had already sent General Thomas Gage orders to march on Concord, Massachusetts, to destroy the armaments stockpiled in the town, and take Patriot leaders John Hancock and Samuel Adams into custody. The orders were given in January 1775 and arrived in Boston before the Conciliatory Proposition. Thus, on April 18, 700 Redcoats marched towards Concord Bridge. The military action led to the Revolutionary War, the birth of the United States as a new nation, the temporary downfall of Lord North and the near abdication of King George III. The Treaty of Paris marking the conflict's end guaranteed New Englanders the right to fish off Newfoundland--the right denied them by the New England Restraining Act.[14]
King George III is the 3rd great grandfather of the husband of the 9th cousin 2x removed of Jeffery Lee Goodlove.
March 30, 1778
Gen. Edward Hand and Indian superintendent George Morgan were appalled when they were informed of the defection of the Alexander McKee pary. The possible damage these men could do to Anerican interests on the upper Ohio and among the various tribes was not lost on either. Hand quickly sent a report of it to the secretary of war, Gen. Horatio Gates, and then, aware that Col. William Crawford, a longtime friend of Girty was at this time preparing a company of men for an intended expedition against the Indians well up the Allegheny on French Creek, immediately wrote to him of the potentially disastrous situation:[15]
Ft. Pitt, March 30th, 1778
March 30th, 1778.
[General Hand to Col. William Crawford. 3NN107—
Transcript.]
FORT Pitt, 30th March, 1778.
DR. Crawford—I recd yr. favor of yesterday, and am sorry for the accident that befel Mr. De Camp, and send the Doctor to his assistance.
You will no doubt be surprised to hear that Mr. McKee, Matthew Elliott, Simon Girty, one Surplus, and Higgins, with McKee’s two negroes, eloped on Saturday night. This will make it improper to proceed with the intended expedition to French Creek, which I beg you may give proper notice of to the gentlemen who are preparing for it; and as your assistance may be necessary towards preventing the evils that may arise from the information of these run-
aways, I beg you may return here as soon as possible I am, Dr. Crawford, sincerely yrs,
EDwd Hand
Col. Wm. Crawford.[16]
March 30, 1780
On the 30th of March, 1780, the English army was encamped some three thousand yards from the lines of Charleston Towards evening the Hessian chasseurs on the picket line stood about a mile from the city Before them lay a flat, sandy plain, unbrokenby a house, tree or bush The only possible shelter consisted in a few ditches. On the night of the 31st of March the first parallel was opened The next morning the inhabitants began to move off their families and their valuables, going in boats up the Cooper River, the only way left open. Down this river, on the 7th of April, came seven hundred Viginia Continentals to reinforce the garrison. They were received with ringing of bells and with salvoes of artillery Night by night the work on the trenches continued. The artillery of the city tried in vain to stop it.[17]
March 30, 1782
General Irwin [Irvine] is now on his way to Pittsburgh; he will do every thing possible for the assistance of the distressed inhabitants If the general has money to pay the militia, etc., there is no doubt he will find men enough to keep the Indians at a distance, and to enable the farmers ‘to put in their crops in due season.”— [18]
Pennsylrania Packet, March 30, 1782 (No. 865).:
March 30, 1782: Concerning the expedition to the “Moravian towns “—known in history as “Williamson’s expedition,” from Col. David Williamson, the one who commanded it—and the investigation which followed, only a brief account in this connection can be given.
Early in 1782, war parties committed sundry depredations upon the border. The first was the killing of John Fink, a young man, near Buchanan fort. The particulars are as follow: “On the 8th of February, 1782, while Henry Fink and his son John were engaged in sledding rails on their farm in the Buchanan settlement, several guns were simultaneously discharged at them, and before John had time to reply to his father’s inquiry whether he was hurt, another gun was fired and he fell lifeless. Having unlinked the chain which fastened the horse to the sled, the old man galloped briskly away. He reached his home in safety, and immediately moved his family to the fort. “Witherss Border Warfare, pp. 232, 233.
The next maraud was the taking from their homes of Mrs. Robert Wallace and her three children on Raccoon creek, of which the following is an account:
“By a gentleman who lately arrived here [Philadelphiaj from the westward, we have the following information: that, about the 8th ult., a woman [Mrs. Robert Wallace] and four [three] children were taken prisoners by the indians, 25 miles west of Fort Pitt. Happily a heavy snow falling the same night prevented much more mischief, as there were upwards of forty indian tracks found in the snow next morning. [See, post, p. 318 and note thereto.] This naturally threw the people in the neighborhood into the greatest consternation and will be a means of causing much distress, unless timely relieved. General irwin [Irvine] is now on his way to Pittsburgh; he will do every thing possible for the assistance of the distressed inhabitants. If the general has money to pay the militia, etc., there is no doubt he will find men enough to keep the indians at a distance, and to enable the farmers to put in their crops in due season.”—[19]
WAS HE ONE OF THE COMMANDERS OF GENERAL WASHINGTON?GOOGLE STUMBLED ONTO THIS;This is G o o g l e's cache of http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~gwilli824/moravian.html
The 1782 Volunteer Militia from Washington County, Pa
And their 92 Moravian Indian victims
By George C. Williston.
Pvt. Daniel Leet ? from the 1888 list only- settled land in Franklin and Chartiers Creek in 1773 and at Catfish Camp [now Washington, Pa] in 1776- is said to have been a Revolutionary officer (other than militia) ? was a Sub- Lieutenant of Washington County appointed April 2, 1781 but resigned that office on March 30, 1782 - is listed in Cecil Township in 1783; RBE sold 120 acres on ?Shirtee? Creek [Chartiers] in 1784;? taxed in Pitt Township of Allegheny County in 1791 ?is buried in Allegheny County. As sub-lieutenant would have been along with Matthew Ritchie the second highest ranking Washington County militia officer on the expedition going as a private when he had the militia rank of Major;
EF says? a surveyor by profession; settled near Catfish Camp in 1776 after which he served in the Continental Line, and with General McIntosh at Fort Laurens in 1778; Deputy Surveyor General in Yohogania, now Washington County; surveyed in this county in 1780 under Virginia certificates; Brigade Major in Crawford?s Expedition; commanded a division after Colonel Burton was wounded; died June 18, 1830, at the home of a daughter at Sewickly Bottom;? PMA- says that Daniel Leet was a friend of General Washington and a Major in the Continental Army where he had a distinguished career. It is fully possible that this Daniel Leet was a surveyor for the Ohio Company of Virginia hoping to ensure land for top men of Virginia including George Washington and George Mason.[46]
Could this be the same man who is credited with this career as an officer in the Revolution: ?acted as quartermaster from January 1,1777 to October 1, 1777 and as paymaster from this latter date to September 21, 1778, then as Brigade-Major for three months, to December 21, 1778. He received 5333 1/2 acres of land from the State of Virginia (as bounty).?[47]
Forrest says in the material quoted above that he was from Bordentown, New Jersey and had married Wilhelmina Carson. This seems to conflict with information from Louise M. Mohler which says that the Leets were from Berkley Co, Va.
A remark from an 1881 letter from the local historian, Isaac Craig to historian Boyd Crumrine, [48] has to be passed along although not otherwise corroborated ?I have heard that Daniel Leet was the man who first used the mallet.? If this means that the man with the second highest political and military position on the raid going as a Private began the killing with a cooper?s mallet as this alleges he set a very bad example for most of the men who had less prestige. Is this the unnamed man who actually killed 13 people before he quit as reported in Washington County histories?
If Daniel Leet committed that disgraceful first murdering it is no wonder that he later resigned his position as a Sub-Lieutenant of Washington County. It is also no wonder that the murders were done or that the story of the massacre was covered up from the public. Daniel Leet and the other influential men on this expedition who were politically and militarily powerful whom other men would either have followed or by whom they would be intimidated.
http://genforum.genealogy.com/leete/messages/309.html
March 30, 1785: William St. Clair obtained warrant for 100 acre tract in Elk Lick (then Cumberland
County84) April 12, 1769. He sold this tract to Peter Livengood in 1773. The site of the
Livengood homestead, is between Salisbury and St. Paul, and nearby is the old Indian
Trail and packers path, known as the Turkeyfoot Road. St. Clair had six acres of the tract
cleared in 1772 according to record in tax assessment file. The Commonwealth land
office records show that Peter Livengood obtained warrant for said tract under date
February 6, 1775, the date of survey is March 30, 1785, date of patent January 13, 1797, named―Liverpool,‖ area 156 acres.[20]
March 30-31, 1824: Henry Clay used the term “American system” in his speech on the tariff. [21]
March 30, 1830: Jasper Allen b: March 30, 1830 in OH d: June 23, 1881. [22]
March 30, 1839
On March 30, 1839, a land grant confirmed to Thomas H. Moore an additional 640 acres in Bastrop County.[23]
Thomas Harrison Moore was taxed on Bastrop, Texas in 1840 for land, cattle, and personal property. [24]
March 30, 1855: Throughout the 1850's, tension developed among groups holding these political views. Rumors ran rampant. Missourians insisted that the emigrants vote had already been paid for by Northern Abolitionist for $100 each. Hundreds of Northern Churches raised money to buy weapons for these emigrants. Especially prized was the Sharp's rifle, which could fire ten rounds per minute. On election day, March 30, 1855, thousands of Missourians, urged on by newspaper articles spewing word that hundreds of the new Sharp's rifles had been sent to Kansas and preparations for war were imminent, were led across the Kansas border by David Atchison to cast their own votes for slavery. The result was the election of pro slavery candidates and a constitution making slavery legal. Soon, murder and kidnapings of persons known to hold one political view by adherents of the other side became common. Groups of Kansans formed armed mobs known as Jayhawkers, led by James Lane, Charles Jennison and James Montgomery, men that were more politically ambitious than abolitionist, raided into Missouri, stealing, burning homes and hanging or shooting those who resisted[25].
Jones, said to be "about thirty-five years of age" at that time, and his young family journeyed first to Westport, Missouri, on the border of the newly opened Kansas Territory. The newly arrived settler was soon appointed postmaster of the town, and he quickly became an active participant in the slavery controversy, better known as the Kansas Question.
During the election of the Kansas's first territorial legislature, on March 30, 1855, Jones led a group of pro-slavery men that destroyed the ballot box at Bloomington, Kansas. This action coupled with his pro-slavery sentiment prompted his appointment on August 27, 1855, as first sheriff of Douglas County by the acting Governor Daniel Woodson. Jones executed his new responsibilities with much zeal, suppressing the rights of the free-state men under his jurisdiction and fostering an atmosphere of distrust.
Violence marked the tenure of Sheriff Jones in Douglas County, beginning in November 1855. A free-state man by the name of Charles W. Dow was murdered ten miles south of Lawrence by Franklin N. Coleman, a proslavery man. Immediately after the murder, a friend of Dow's, Jacob Branson, was arrested for attending a free-state protest meeting. He was quickly freed by free-state partisans, but the arrest so alarmed the free-state community that it began to organize a militia and fortify the town of Lawrence. The "Wakarusa War" ensued whereby proslavery militia supporting Sheriff Jones and the governor besieged the city for about a week. On December 8 and 9, James H. Lane and Charles Robinson brokered a truce with Governor Wilson Shannon. Thereafter both sides disbanded, and the war came to an official end.
Soon, however, renewed violence erupted between free-state and proslavery settlers in Douglas County. George W. Brown's free-state newspaper in Lawrence, the Herald of Freedom, had long been a source of bitter contempt to the proslavery forces operating in Kansas. On May 21, 1856, Sheriff Jones, accompanied by a group of proslavery men acting as his posse, entered Lawrence intent on destroying the offices of the Herald of Freedom and the Kansas Free State . In the raid that followed they destroyed the newspaper offices (dumping their type in the Kansas River), looted several other businesses, and burned the Free State Hotel (later the Eldridge House). This action became widely known as the "Sack of Lawrence."
On January 7, 1857, the tenure of Jones as sheriff of Douglas County came to an end, and he left Kansas Territory. Jones resigned as sheriff of Douglas County in a heated dispute with the territorial governor. The source of the disagreement was the governor's denial of the sheriff's request for "balls and chains" for use on incarcerated free-state men at Lecompton. Jones clearly wanted to impose harsh corporal punishment on his adversaries, and failing to win gubernatorial support for such measures, Jones chose resignation over a more lenient, conciliatory policy. Jones quickly left the territory, moving to New Mexico, where in September 1858 he accepted an appointment as collector of customs at Paso del Norte and eventually purchased a ranch near Mesilla, where he died some years later.
From Kansas: a cyclopedia of state history...
By Frank W. Blackmar (1912)[26]
March 30, 1863: Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day
The following document has often been confused with Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation. Lincoln believed that the civil war was God's judgment on the nation for it's sinfulness. And in an omimous echo of the words of the King of Nineveh in Jonah 3:7-8, Lincoln made this proclamation of a national day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer.
Washington, D.C.
March 30, 1863
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.
And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.
And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!
It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.
Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.
All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.
By the President: Abraham Lincoln[27]
Spring now began to make its appearance and the waters to recede from the streets of Helena. About this time Luke Baldwin, R. Q. M. of the regiment, fell very ill with dysentery. Despite the
utmost care under the circumstances, and the best skill of our surgeons, he rapidly declined, and
died on the first of March. He was the first officer of the regiment called upon to seal his
devotion to our common cause with his life. He was eminently fitted for the position he had
occupied. He had always been careful, skillful and honest in the discharge of his duties toward the government and his regiment. In addition to his business qualities, being of a cheerful disposition, quiet and gentlemanly in his manner, his sudden and unexpected death was a matter
of sincere and earnest regret among his brother officers of the regiment.
Albert B. Echleman, the Q. M. Sergeant, who had been his faithful and unremitting assistant, was promoted to the vacancy occasioned by his death.
Drilling, which had been abandoned in consequence of the severity of the weather for some months, was again resumed with renewed diligence. The regiment rapidly acquired a perfection
in this under the skillful and experienced instructions of Lieut. Col. J. Q. Wilds, which on several occasions of general reviews elicited the warm commendation of Generals Gorman and Fiske.
The pride taken by all in keeping their arms in excellent condition contributed greatly to its appearance, and its estimation with those inspecting it. Meanwhile preparations were being made
for opening the spring campaign. [28]
In the spring and early summer of 1863, the guerrillas operated in small independent bands. Quantrill perhaps discouraged by his failure in Richmond and knowing that he had lost the respect of most of his men during his absence that winter, stayed in the background. He was usually kept informed of the activities of these groups led by George Todd, William Gregg, Dave Poole, Bloody Bill Anderson, Cole Younger and a few others. Quantrill rarely helped plan or participate in their raids. Even so, the authorities and news media blamed every guerrilla raid in Jackson and Cass County on Quantrill. Quantrill spent most of his time with his new found lover, Kate King. He and Kate were secretly married at the cabin of a backwoods preacher against the wishes of her parents who had forbid her to see Quantrill. During the summer, he was also planning a project dear to his heart but he needed a catalyst to bring it together. He was planning a raid on Lawrence, Kansas.
By the end of May the guerrilla groups operating under Todd, Gregg, Poole, Jarrett and Anderson ensured that the authorities knew Quantrill's Raiders were back in town. Sometime in July, John Jarrett and William Gregg took with them five men apiece and crossed into Kansas near Westport. The twelve waited until dark and set up an ambush along the main road between Leavenworth and Kansas City. Their first victims were a sergeant and four men carrying dispatches. The five were killed and the dispatches destroyed. The next to come along was an ambulance carrying a sutler, a sutler's clerk, two artillery men who were asleep and a black driver. Jarrett rose up and shouted for the wagon to halt, but the driver realizing what was happening whipped the horses in an attempt to flee. Gregg galloped ahead and shot the lead horse in the traces. The guerrillas killed the sutler, the clerk and the black driver. The artillery men were spared because they were regular army and Irishmen. The guerrillas held them until dark and then let them go without asking for a pledge.
Just down the road about half a mile was a house that also served as a tavern. William Gregg, John Ross and Sim Whitsett rode up to the tavern ahead of the others guerrillas. Gregg called out, "Hello, who keeps the house?" The owner came out and told the the group that he did, but he was full for the night. Two guerrillas stayed outside with the horses while the other ten prowled the premises. In the stables three Federals were pulled out of the straw. Another was cornered and captured in the kitchen. The remaining five militia men were caught undressed in beds in various places in the house. All were rounded up and brought together outside where Jarrett shot them. Then the tavern keeper was killed over a horse he was trying to save. Unfortunately, brutality like this was common on the border and both sides were guilty of it.
After killing the Federals and the tavern keeper, the guerrillas burned the tavern. This was a mistake. The smoke and flames alerted a camp of Union cavalry who came to put out the fire. Jarrett and Gregg and their ten guerrillas were gone but the soldiers hunted for them all night and the next day.
The activities by the guerrillas in the spring and summer of 1863 infuriated Brigadier General Thomas Ewing, the Union commander of the District of the Border. He vowed to keep a thousand men in the saddle until Quantrill and his men were run to the ground. In the middle of July Quantrill brought his group together in Jackson County. The Raiders probably numbered a little more than one-hundred men. The guerrilla band rode east towards Blue Springs and Pleasant Hill when they saw a line of Federal cavalry. The guerrillas as usual were dressed in Union blue which allowed them to move around more easily in an area now saturated with Union troops. Quantrill sent George Todd and James Little ahead. Two Federals rode out to meet them and halted fifty yards from Todd and Little.
"Who are you?" asked Todd. The answer was Major Ransom with four hundred men and two pieces of artillery.
"What is your business?" asked Todd.
"Looking for that damned scoundrel Quantrill and his cut-throats," replied the Federal.
Little quickly rode back to Quantrill to report on the situation. He asked for twenty men to skirmish with the enemy. Quantrill complied sending under the command of Cole Younger, Frank and Jesse James, George and Richard Maddox, George Wiggington, Sim Whitsett, Tom Talley and twelve others. Todd lead the charge against an outlying column. The Federals, completely surprised by the assault were cut to pieces before they could retreat to the main body of cavalry. Sim Whitsett was seen to shoot three and the James brothers also three each. Todd is said to have killed four. The casualties on the Union side were claimed to be fifteen killed and a dozen wounded with no injuries to the guerrillas.
Ransom opened fire on the twenty guerrillas with his artillery. The raiders fell back and Quantrill retreated west in the direction they had just came. Quantrill sent couriers to Dave Poole, Andrew Blunt and William Gregg who were behind the main group of guerrillas. They and their men were ordered to hide themselves at a crossing on the Sni and to hold it. Ransom slowly and steadily followed Quantrill using his artillery at every opportunity. Quantrill crossed the Sni and formed a battle line on ground beyond the crossing. When Ransom's troops began to cross, Poole and the group laying in ambush opened fire. At the same time Quantrill ordered a charge. Again caught off guard, Ransom's men broke and ran. Major Ransom was forced to retreat to Independence. Ransom reported that his casualties numbered fifty-eight.
After this battle Quantrill's men again broke into individual groups and continued their harassment of the Federals. Quantrill again withdrew from the activities of the guerrillas and worked on his plan to raid Lawrence, Kansas.
We can only guess at Quantrill’s motives for wanting to raid Lawrence. It was deep in Kansas and the border was crawling with Federal militia units whose main mission was to keep Quantrill out of Kansas. Perhaps he saw a raid on Lawrence as a slap at Confederate leaders back east who were facing dismal prospects in the west. He also held a grudge against Lawrence, whose citizens regarded him as a petty thief and loafer. The sheriff of Lawrence had practically chased him out of the city in 1860, the reason Quantrill had lead the infamous raid on the Morgan Walker farm. Now he wanted to return to show Lawrence that he had become someone the Jayhawkers in Lawrence should fear. Lawrence was the home of Senator Jim Lane and the hot bed of Jayhawker activities. Many of the atrocities against southern families in Jackson and Cass Counties had originated with bands of Jayhawkers operating out of Lawrence. If he could pull it off, it would also show his own men that he was still a man they should respect. However, he needed something that would inspire the guerrillas to follow him on such a dangerous mission. The Federal authorities in Kansas City gave him just what he needed in August, 1863.
Back to top [29]
[30]
Wed. March 30, 1864
Laid in camp had a light chill and fever
Got pontoon bridge don at 4 pm
Cavalry crossed all night[31] rebs left
William Harrison Goodlove Civil War Diary, 24th Iowa Infantry[32]
March 30, 1868: The city of Martinsburg was incorporated by an act of the West Virginia Legislature on March 30, 1868.
March 30, 1896: Richard Gottlieb, born March 30, 1896, AAy- July 28, 1942 Baranovici[33]
Transport AAq –Praha
Terezin 13. cervence 1942
948hynulych
949 1 osvobozenych
1 osud nezjistenl
March 30, 1871: Marion Henrietta Smith1
F, #322, b. FEBruary 25, 1835, d. JULy 11, 1897
Charts
Henry Streatfeilds descendants
Birth*
FEBruary 25, 1835
Marion Henrietta Smith was born on FEBruary 25, 1835 at Hampstead, Middlesex; father Oswald Smith, Magistrate & Banker.2
Baptism
MARch 15, 1835
She was baptized on MARch 15, 1835 at St Marylebone, Westminster, Middlesex.3
Marriage*
OCTober 1854
She married Lt. Col. Henry Dorrien Streatfeild, son of Lt Col. Henry Streatfeild and Maria Dorrien-Magens, in OCTober 1854 at St George, Hanover Square, Westminster, Middlesex.4
Death*
JULy 11, 1897
Marion Henrietta Smith died on JULy 11, 1897 at 9 Tite Street, Chelsea, London, aged 62.5
Married Name
1855
Her married name was Streatfeild.1
Residence*
MARch 30, 1861
She and Lt. Col. Henry Dorrien Streatfeild lived at Blendon Hall, Bexley, Kent, together with Violet Streatfeild; visiting in-laws.6
Residence
MARch 30, 1871
Marion Henrietta Smith and Lt. Col. Henry Dorrien Streatfeild lived at High Street House, Chiddingstone, Kent, together with Col. Sir Henry Streatfeild, Sidney Streatfeild, Gerard Streatfeild, Oswald Smith Streatfeild, Capt. Eric Streatfeild, Ivy Marion Streatfeild, Ruby Streatfeild and Violet Streatfeild.7
Residence
MARch 30, 1881
Marion Henrietta Smith and Lt. Col. Henry Dorrien Streatfeild lived at High Street House, Chiddingstone, Kent, together with Capt. Edward Ogle Streatfeild, Ruby Streatfeild and Ivy Marion Streatfeild.8
Residence*
MARch 30, 1891
Marion Henrietta Smith lived at 9 Ralston Street, Chelsea, London, together with Ivy Marion Streatfeild.9
Family
Lt. Col. Henry Dorrien Streatfeild b. August 2, 1825, d. March 27, 1889
Children
1. Violet Streatfeild10 b. July 1855, d. December 25, 1880
2. Col. Sir Henry Streatfeild+11 b. January 4, 1857, d. July 25, 1938
Sidney Streatfeild+1 b. July 10, 1859, d. January 10, 1924
3. Gerard Streatfeild+12 b. August 20, 1860, d.July 26, 1933
4. Oswald Smith Streatfeild+13 b. March 24, 1862, d. February 2, 1929
5. Capt. Eric Streatfeild14 b. February 8, 1864, d. March 26, 1902
6. Ruby Streatfeild15 b. November 10, 1866, d. December 13, 1943
7. Ivy Marion Streatfeild16 b. September 1, 1869, d. July 1960
8. Capt. Philip Streatfeild RN, MVO+17 b. May 27, 1872, d. April 1960
Last Edited
25 Jul 2012
Citations
1. [S44] Extracted from the 1861 census.
2. [S28] Monumental inscription, Inscription to Henry Dorrien Streatfeild & Marion Henrietta on a Cross in Chiddingstone Churchyard.
3. [S76] London Births & Baptisms, father Oswald Smith, mother Henrietta Mildred.
4. [S17] England & Wales BMD indices, marriage; St George, Hanover Sq. October-December 1854, vol 1a 375.
5. [S82] England & Wales National Probate Calendar, probate to Sidney Streatfeild, stockbroker.
6. [S44] Extracted from the 1861 census, seat of Oswald Smith, Banker.
7. [S45] Extracted from the 1871 census.
8. [S21] Extracted from the 1881 census, also son-in-law Lord Henry Neville & sons.
9. [S46] Extracted from the 1891 census, as widow with dau. Ivy & servants.
10. [S17] England & Wales BMD indices, birth, Chelsea, Middlesex, Jul-Sep 1855, vol 1a 129.
11. [S17] England & Wales BMD indices, birth. Sevenoaks, Kent, Jan-Mar 1857, vol 2a 373.
12. [S17] England & Wales BMD indices, birth. Sevenoaks, Kent, Jan-Mar 1861, vol 2a 411.
13. [S17] England & Wales BMD indices, birth. Sevenoaks, Kent, Apr-Jun 1862, vol 2a 413.
14. [S17] England & Wales BMD indices, birth. Sevenoaks, Kent,Jan-Mar 1864, vol 2a 468.
15. [S45] Extracted from the 1871 census, aged 4 at census.
16. [S17] England & Wales BMD indices, birth. Sevenoaks, Kent, Jul-Sep 1869, vol 2a 520.
17. [S17] England & Wales BMD indices, birth, Kensington, London, Jul-Sep 1872, vol 1a 11.
[34]
March 30, 1899
(Pleasant Valley) Mr. and Mrs Willis Goodlove were shopping in Cedar Rapids, Monday.[35]
March 30, 1933: The first of thousands of “critics” of The Third Reich were sent to Dachau.[36]
March 30, 1951: The five were arrested on charges of involvement in a spy-ring which sold atomic weapons secrets to the Soviet Union. The alleged spy-ring operated in this manner: David Greenglass, working as a machinist at Los Alamos, New Mexico during the development of the atomic bomb, imparted secret sketches and drawings to Harry Gold. In turn, Gold delivered these to Julius Rosenberg who yielded them to Martin Sobell. Greenglass and Gold pleaded guilty, but the Rosenbergs and Sobell did not.
A controversy ensued over the guilt or innocence of the Rosenbergs, a debate that has continued to this day. Some asserted that the Rosenbergs were victimized by anti-Semitism. Some believed that the Rosenbergs were merely scapegoats for the Korean War (the judge all but blamed the couple for the Korean War). Despite mixed public opinion, the prosecution achieved victory after only fifteen trial days and one day of jury deliberation. The Rosenbergs and Morton Sobell were convicted on March 30, 1951.
March 30, 1961 Oswald enters the Russian Fourth Clinical Hospital for an
adenoids operation. Marina visits him daily. By the time he leaves the hospital he has asked her
to be his fiancee and she has agreed to consider it. [37]
March 30, 1962 Press reports that Robert Amory, Jr. has resigned as deputy
director for intelligence in the Central Intelligence Agency, a post he has held since 1953.
Also this month, Vice President Lyndon Johnson approaches Texas Governor John
Connally with information that JFK wishes to visit Texas for the purpose of fund-raising. [38]
March 30, 1963 Robert McNamara announces a reorganization program that
will close fifty-two military installations in twenty-five states, as well as twenty-one overseas
bases, over a three-year period.
Also on this date, and after a series of unauthorized attacks on Cuba, U.S. government
announces crackdown on Cuban exiles. [39]
March 30 – June 10, 1964: The longest filibuster in the history of the Senate was waged against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with 57 days of debate over a 73 day period. It ended when the Senate voted 71–29 to invoke cloture, the first successful cloture motion on a civil rights bill.[1][2][3]
March 30, 1977: Soviet Union rejects SALT II proposals.[41]
February 6, 1952 – March 30, 2002: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
Arms
Queen Elizabeth's coat of arms was the royal coat of arms of the United Kingdom (in either the English or the Scottish version) impaled with the arms of her father, the Earl of Strathmore; the latter being: 1st and 4th quarters, Argent, a lion rampant Azure, armed and langued Gules, within a double tressure flory-counter-flory of the second (Lyon); 2nd and 3rd quarters, Ermine, three bows stringed paleways proper (Bowes).[153] The shield is surmounted by the imperial crown, and supported by the crowned lion of England and a lion rampant per fess Or and Gules.[154]
Ancestry
[show]Ancestors of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
March 30, 2002: At 3:15 pm, the Queen Mother died in her sleep at the Royal Lodge, Windsor Great Park, with her surviving daughter, Queen Elizabeth II, at her bedside. She had been suffering from a cold for the last four months of her life.[118] She was 101 years old, and at the time of her death was the longest-lived member of the royal family in British history. This record was broken on July 24, 2003, by her last surviving sister-in-law Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, who died aged 102 on October 29, 2004.[42]
March 30, 2002:
The Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
March 30 2002
101 years
In 1923, she married The Prince Albert, Duke of York, later King George VI, and had issue. In later life, she was known as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.
[43]
Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
The Queen Mother
Portrait by Richard Stone, 1986
Queen consort of the United Kingdom
and the British Dominions
Tenure
December 11, 1936 –
February 6, 1952
Coronation
May 12, 1937
Empress consort of India
Tenure
December 11, 1936 –
August 14, 1947
Spouse
George VI
Issue
Elizabeth II
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon
Full name
Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon[a]
House
House of Windsor (by marriage)
Father
Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
Mother
Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck
Born
(1900-08-04)August 4, 1900
London or Hitchin
Died
March 30, 2002(2002-03-30) (aged 101)
Royal Lodge, Windsor, Berkshire
Burial
9 April 2002
St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle
Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon (August 4, 1900 – March 30, 2002) was the wife of King George VI and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II. She was queen consort of the United Kingdom from her husband's accession in 1936 until his death in 1952, after which she was known as Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother,[2] to avoid confusion with her daughter, another Queen Elizabeth. She was the last Empress of India.
Born into a family of British nobility as The Honourable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, she became Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon when her father inherited the Scottish Earldom of Strathmore and Kinghorne in 1904. She came to prominence in 1923 when she married Albert, Duke of York, the second son of King George V and Queen Mary. As Duchess of York, she – along with her husband and their two daughters Elizabeth and Margaret – embodied traditional ideas of family and public service.[3] She undertook a variety of public engagements, and became known as the "Smiling Duchess" because of her consistent public expression.[4]
In 1936, her husband unexpectedly became King when his brother, Edward VIII, abdicated in order to marry the American divorcée Wallis Simpson. Queen Elizabeth accompanied her husband on diplomatic tours to France and North America before the start of World War II. During the war, her seemingly indomitable spirit provided moral support to the British public. In recognition of her role as an asset to British interests, Adolf Hitler described her as "the most dangerous woman in Europe".[5] After the war, her husband's health deteriorated and she was widowed at the age of 51.
On the death of her mother-in-law Queen Mary in 1953, with her brother-in-law living abroad and her elder daughter, the Queen, aged 27, Elizabeth became the senior member of the British Royal Family and assumed a position as family matriarch. In her later years, she was a consistently popular member of the family, even when other members were suffering from low levels of public approval.[6] She continued an active public life until just a few months before her death at the age of 101, seven weeks after the death of her younger daughter, Princess Margaret.
Early life
Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon was the youngest daughter and the ninth of ten children of Claude Bowes-Lyon, Lord Glamis, (later the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne in the Peerage of Scotland), and his wife, Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck. Her mother was descended from British Prime Minister William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland, and Governor-General of India Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley, who was the elder brother of another Prime Minister, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.[b]
The location of her birth remains uncertain, but reputedly she was born either in her parents' Westminster home at Belgrave Mansions, Grosvenor Gardens, or in a horse-drawn ambulance on the way to a hospital.[9] Other possible locations include Forbes House in Ham, London, the home of her maternal grandmother, Mrs Scott.[10] Her birth was registered at Hitchin, Hertfordshire,[11] near the Strathmores' English country house, St Paul's Walden Bury, which was also given as her birthplace in the census the following year.[12] She was christened there on 23 September 1900, in the local parish church, All Saints, and her godparents included her paternal aunt Lady Maud Bowes-Lyon and cousin Mrs Arthur James.[13]
She spent much of her childhood at St Paul's Walden and at Glamis Castle, the Earl's ancestral home in Scotland. She was educated at home by a governess until the age of eight, and was fond of field sports, ponies and dogs.[14] When she started school in London, she astonished her teachers by precociously beginning an essay with two Greek words from Xenophon's Anabasis. Her best subjects were literature and scripture. After returning to private education under a German Jewish governess, Käthe Kübler, she passed the Oxford Local Examination with distinction at age 13.[15][44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.tudor-history.com/about-tudors/tudor-timeline/
[2] Wikipedia
[3] Wikipedia
[4] Wikipedia
[5] http://archive.org/stream/lettersofmarystu00mary/lettersofmarystu00mary_djvu.txt
[6] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[7] Wikipedia
[8] The Diaries of George Washington. Vol.3. Donald Jackson, ed.; Dorothy Twohig, assoc. ed. The Papers of George Washington. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1978.
[9] (From River Clyde to Tymochtee and Col. William Crawford, by Grace U. Emahiser, 1969, page 119.)
[10] On this day GW revised and completed his instructions to Valentine Crawford for the party setting out to seat OW’s Kanawha River lands. The instructions, which are quite detailed, include the following directions: “that as much Ground as possible may be got in order for Corn, & planted therewith, I would have you delay building & Tenting till the Season is too late for Planting. . . . It will be essentially necessary to have all the work done upon any one Tract appraisd before you move to the next Tract” (DLC:GW). The appraisal, usually by local county court justices, was to satisfy the land law requiring improvements within the three-year limit (HENING, 3:312-- 13).
[11] The Diaries of George Washington. Vol. 3 University Press of Virginia, 1978
[12] The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.--vol. 03
[13] King George III
AKA George William Frederick Hanover
Born: June 4,-1738
Birthplace: London, England
Died: January 29, 1820
Location of death: Windsor Castle, Berkshire, England
Cause of death: unspecified
Remains: Buried, Windsor Castle, Berkshire, England
Gender: Male
Religion: Anglican/Episcopalian
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Royalty
Nationality: England
Executive summary: King of England, 1760-1820
George III, King of Great Britain and Ireland, son of Frederick, Prince of Wales, and grandson of King George II, whom he succeeded in 1760, was born on June 4, 1738. After his father's death in 1751 he had been educated in seclusion from the fashionable world under the care of his mother and of her favorite counsellor the Earl of Bute. He had been taught to revere the maxims of Bolingbroke's "Patriot King", and to believe that it was his appointed task in life to break the power of the Whig houses resting upon extensive property and the influence of patronage and corruption. That power had already been gravely shaken. The Whigs from their incompetency were obliged when the Seven Years' War broke out to leave its management in the hands of William Pitt. The nation learned to applaud the great war minister who succeeded where others had failed, and whose immaculate purity put to shame the ruck of barterers of votes for places and pensions.
In some sort the work of the new king was the continuation of the work of Pitt. But his methods were very different. He did not appeal to any widely spread feeling or prejudice; nor did he disdain the use of the arts which had maintained his opponents in power. The patronage of the crown was to be really as well as nominally his own; and he calculated, not without reason, that men would feel more flattered in accepting a place from a king than from a minister. The new Toryism of which he was the founder was no recurrence to the Toryism of the days of King Charles II or even of Queen Anne. The question of the amount of toleration to be accorded to Dissenters had been entirely laid aside. The point at issue was whether the crown should be replaced in the position which King George I might have occupied at the beginning of his reign, selecting the ministers and influencing the deliberations of the cabinet. For this struggle George III possessed no inconsiderable advantages. With an inflexible tenacity of purpose, he was always ready to give way when resistance was really hopeless. As the first English-born sovereign of his house, speaking from his birth the language of his subjects, he found a way to the hearts of many who never regarded his predecessors as other than foreign intruders. The contrast, too, between the pure domestic life which he led with his wife Charlotte, whom he married in 1761, and the habits of three generations of his house, told in his favor with the vast majority of his subjects. Even his marriage had been a sacrifice to duty. Soon after his accession he had fallen in love with Lady Sarah Lennox, and had been observed to ride morning by morning along the Kensington Road, from which the object of his affections was to be seen from the lawn of Holland House making hay, or engaged in some other ostensible employment. Before the year was over Lady Sarah appeared as one of the queen's bridesmaids, and she was herself married to Sir Charles Bunbury in 1762.
At first everything seemed easy to him. Pitt had come to be regarded by his own colleagues as a minister who would pursue war at any price, and in getting rid of Pitt in 1761 and in carrying on the negotiations which led to the peace of Paris in 1762, the king was able to gather around him many persons who would not be willing to acquiesce in any permanent change in the system of government. With the signature of the peace his real difficulties began. The Whig houses, indeed, were divided amongst themselves by personal rivalries. But they were none of them inclined to let power and the advantages of power slip from their hands without a struggle. For some years a contest of influence was carried on without dignity and without any worthy aim. The king was not strong enough to impose upon parliament a ministry of his own choice. But he gathered around himself a body of dependants known as the king's friends, who were secure of his favor, and who voted one way or the other according to his wishes. Under these circumstances no ministry could possibly be stable; and yet every ministry was strong enough to impose some conditions on the king. Lord Bute, the king's first choice, resigned from a sense of his own incompetency in 1763. George Grenville was in office until 1765; the Marquis of Rockingham until 1766; Pitt, becoming Earl of Chatham, until illness compelled him to retire from the conduct of affairs in 1767, when he was succeeded by the Duke of Grafton. But a struggle of interests could gain no real strength for any government, and the only chance the king had of effecting a permanent change in the balance of power lay in the possibility of his associating himself with some phase of strong national feeling, as Pitt had associated himself with the war feeling caused by the dissatisfaction spread by the weakness and ineptitude of his predecessors.
Such a chance was offered by the question of the right to tax America. The notion that England was justified in throwing on America part of the expenses caused in the late war was popular in the country, and no one adopted it more pertinaciously then George III. At the bottom the position which he assumed was as contrary to the principles of parliamentary government as the encroachments of Charles I had been. But it was veiled in the eyes of Englishmen by the prominence given to the power of the British parliament rather than to the power of the British king. In fact the theory of parliamentary \’government, like most theories after their truth has long been universally acknowledged, had become a superstition. Parliaments were held to be properly vested with authority, not because they adequately represented the national will, but simply because they were parliaments. There were thousands of people in England to whom it never occurred that there was any good reason why a British parliament should be allowed to levy a duty on tea in the London docks and should not be allowed to levy a duty on tea at the wharves of Boston. Undoubtedly George III derived great strength from his honest participation in this mistake. Contending under parliamentary forms, he did not wound the susceptibilities of members of parliament, and when at last in 1770 he appointed Lord North -- a minister of his own selection -- prime minister, the object of his ambition was achieved with the concurrence of a large body of politicians who had nothing in common with the servile band of the king's friends.
As long as the struggle with America was carried on with any hope of success they gained that kind of support which is always forthcoming to a government which shares in the errors and prejudices of its subjects. The expulsion of Wilkes from the House of Commons in 1769, and the refusal of the House to accept him as a member after his re-election, raised a grave constitutional question in which the king was wholly in the wrong; and Wilkes was popular in London and Middlesex. But his case roused no national indignation, and when in 1774 those sharp measures were taken with Boston which led to the commencement of the American rebellion in 1775, the opposition to the course taken by the king made little way either in parliament or in the country. Edmund Burke might point out the folly and inexpedience of the proceedings of the government. Chatham might point out that the true spirit of English government was to be representative, and that that spirit was being violated at home and abroad. George III, who thought that the first duty of the Americans was to obey himself, had on his side the mass of unreflecting Englishmen who thought that the first duty of all colonists was to be useful and submissive to the mother country. The natural dislike of every country engaged in war to see itself defeated was on his side, and when the news of Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga arrived in 1777, subscriptions of money to raise new regiments poured freely in.
In March 1778 the French ambassador in London announced that a treaty of friendship and commerce had been concluded between France and the new United States of America. Lord North was anxious to resign power into stronger hands, and begged the king to receive Chatham as his prime minister. The king would not hear of it. He would have nothing to say to that perfidious man unless he would humble himself to enter the ministry as North's subordinate. Chatham naturally refused to do anything of the kind, and his death in the course of the year relieved the king of the danger of being again overruled by too overbearing a minister. England was now at war with France, and in 1779 she was also at war with Spain.
George III was still able to control the disposition of office. He could not control the course of events. His very ministers gave up the struggle as hopeless long before he would acknowledge the true state of the case. Before the end of 1779, two of the leading members of the cabinet, Lords Gower and Weymouth, resigned rather than bear the responsibility of so ruinous an enterprise as the attempt to overpower America and France together. Lord North retained office, but he acknowledged to the king that his own opinion was precisely the same as that of his late colleagues.
The year 1780 saw an agitation rising in the country for economical reform, an agitation very closely though indirectly connected with the war policy of the king. The public meetings held in the country on this subject have no unimportant place in the development of the constitution. Since the presentation of the Kentish petition in the reign of William III there had been from time to time upheavings of popular feeling against the doings of the legislature, which kept up the tradition that parliament existed in order to represent the nation. But these upheavings had all been so associated with ignorance and violence as to make it very difficult for men of sense to look with displeasure upon the existing emancipation of the House of Commons from popular control. The Sacheverell riots, the violent attacks upon the Excise Bill, the no less violent advocacy of the Spanish War, the declamations of the supporters of Wilkes at a more recent time, and even in this very year the Gordon riots, were not likely to make thoughtful men anxious to place real power in the hands of the classes from whom such exhibitions of folly proceeded. But the movement for economical reform was of a very different kind. It was carried on soberly in manner, and with a definite practical object. It asked for no more than the king ought to have been willing to concede. It attacked useless expenditure upon sinecures and unnecessary offices in the household, the only use of which was to spread abroad corruption amongst the upper classes. George III could not bear to be interfered with at all, or to surrender any element of power which had served him in his long struggle with the Whigs. He held out for more than another year. The news of the capitulation of Yorktown reached London on the November 25, 1781. On the March 20, 1782 Lord North resigned.
George III accepted the consequences of defeat. He called the Marquis of Rockingham to office at the head of a ministry composed of pure Whigs and of the disciples of the late Earl of Chatham, and he authorized the new ministry to open negotiations for peace. Their hands were greatly strengthened by Rodney's victory over the French fleet, and the failure of the combined French and Spanish attack upon Gibraltar; and before the end of 1782 a provisional treaty was signed with America, preliminaries of peace with France and Spain being signed early in the following year. On the September 3, 1783 the definitive treaties with the three countries were simultaneously concluded. "Sir", said the king to John Adams, the first minister of the United States of America accredited to him, "I wish you to believe, and that it may be understood in America, that I have done nothing in the late contest but what I thought myself indispensably bound to do by the duty which I owed to my people. I will be very frank with you. I was the last to consent to the separation: but the separation having been made and having become inevitable, I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power."
Long before the signature of the treaties Rockingham died (July 1, 1782). The king chose Lord Shelburne, the head of the Chatham section of the government, to be prime minister. Fox and the followers of Rockingham refused to serve except under the Duke of Portland, a minister of their own selection, and resigned office. The old constitutional struggle of the reign was now to be fought out once more. Fox, too weak to obtain a majority alone, coalesced with Lord North, and defeated Shelburne in the House of Commons on the February 27, 1783. On the 2nd of April (April 2) the coalition took office, with Portland as nominal prime minister, and Fox and North the secretaries of state as its real heads.
This attempt to impose upon him a ministry which he disliked made the king very angry. But the new cabinet had a large majority in the House of Commons, and the only chance of resisting it lay in an appeal to the country against the House of Commons. Such an appeal was not likely to be responded to unless the ministers discredited themselves with the nation. Goerge III therefore waited his time. Though a coalition between men bitterly opposed to one another in all political principles and drawn together by nothing but love of office was in itself discreditable, it needed some more positive cause of dissatisfaction to arouse the constituencies, which were by no means so ready to interfere in political disputes at that time as they are now. Such dissatisfaction was given by the India Bill, drawn up by Burke. As soon as it had passed through the Commons the king hastened to procure its rejection in the House of Lords by his personal intervention with the peers. He authorized Lord Temple to declare in his name that he would count any peer who voted for the bill as his enemy. On the December 17, 1783 the bill was thrown out. The next day ministers were dismissed. William Pitt the Younger became prime minister. After some weeks' struggle with a constantly decreasing majority in the Commons, the king dissolved patliament on the March 25, 1784. The country rallied round the crown and the young minister, and Pitt was firmly established in office.
There can be no reasonable doubt that Pitt not only took advantage of the king's intervention in the Lords, but was cognizant of the intrigue before it was actually carried out. It was upon him, too, that the weight of reconciling the country to an administration formed under such circumstances lay. The general result, so far as George III was concerned, was that to all outward appearance he had won the great battle of his life. It was he who was to appoint the prime minister, not any clique resting on a parliamentary support. But the circumstances under which the victory was won were such as to place the constitution in a position very different from that in which it would have been if the victory had been gained earlier in the reign. Intrigue there was indeed in 1783 and 1784 as there had been twenty years before. Parliamentary support was conciliated by Pitt by the grant of royal favors as it had been in the days of Bute. The actual blow was struck by a most questionable message to individual peers. But the main result of the whole political situation was that George III had gone a long way towards disentangling the reality of parliamentary government from its accidents. His ministry finally stood because it had appealed to the constituencies against their representatives. Since then it has properly become a constitutional axiom that no such appeal should be made by the crown itself. But it may reasonably be doubted whether any one but the king was at that time capable of making the appeal. Lord Shelburne, the leader of the ministry expelled by the coalition, was unpopular in the country, and the younger Pitt had not had time to make his great abilities known beyond a limited circle. The real question for the constitutional historian to settle is not whether under ordinary circumstances a king is the proper person to place himself really as well as nominally at the bead of the government; but whether under the special circumstances which existed in 1783 it was not better that the king should call upon the people to support him, than that government should be left in the hands of men who rested their power on close boroughs and the dispensation of patronage, without looking beyond the walls of the House of Commons for support.
That the king gained credit far beyond his own deserts by the glories of Pitt's ministry is beyond a doubt. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that his own example of domestic propriety did much to strengthen the position of his minister. It is true that that life was insufferably dull. No gleams of literary or artistic taste lightened it up. The dependants of the court became inured to dull routine unchequered by loving sympathy. The sons of the household were driven by the sheer weariness of such an existence into the coarsest profligacy. But all this was not visible from a distance. The tide of moral and religious improvement which had set in in England since the days of John Wesley brought popularity to a king who was faithful to his wife, in the same way that the tide of manufacturing industry and scientific progress brought popularity to the minister who in some measure translated into practice the principles of the Wealth of Nations.
Nor were there wanting subjects of importance beyond the circle of politics in which George III showed a lively interest. The voyages of discovery which made known so large a part of the islands and coasts of the Pacific Ocean received from him a warm support. In the early days of the Royal Academy, its finances were strengthened by liberal grants from the privy purse. His favorite pursuit, however, was farming. When Arthur Young was issuing his Annals of Agriculture, he was supplied with information by the king, under the assumed name of Mr. Ralph Robinson, relating to a farm at Petersham.
The life of the king was suddenly clouded over. Early in his reign, in 1765, he had been out of health, and -- though the fact was studiously concealed at the time -- symptoms of mental aberration were even then to be perceived. In October 1788 he was again out of health, and in the beginning of the following month his insanity was beyond a doubt. While Pitt and Fox were contending in the House of Commons over the terms on which the regency should be committed to the Prince of Wales, the king was a helpless victim to the ignorance of physicians and the brutalities of his servants. At last Dr. Willis, who had made himself a name by prescribing gentleness instead of rigor in the treatment of the insane, was called in. Under his more humane management the king rapidly recovered. Before the end of February 1789 he was able to write to Pitt thanking him for his warm support of his interests during his illness. On the April 23, he went in person to St. Paul's to return thanks for his recovery.
The popular enthusiasm which burst forth around St. Paul's was but a foretaste of a popularity far more universal. The French Revolution frightened the great Whig landowners until they made their peace with the king. Those who thought that the true basis of government was aristocratical were now of one mind with those who thought that the true basis of government was monarchical; and these two classes were joined by a far larger multitude which had no political ideas whatever, but which had a moral horror of the guillotine. As Queen Elizabeth I had once been the symbol of resistance to Spain, George was now the symbol of resistance to France. He was not, however, more than the symbol. He allowed Pitt to levy taxes and incur debt, to launch armies to defeat, and to prosecute the English imitators of French revolutionary courses. At last, however, after the Union with Ireland was accomplished, he learned that Pitt was planning a scheme to relieve the Catholics from the disabilities under which they labored. The plan was revealed to him by the chancellor, Lord Loughborough, a selfish and intriguing politician who had served all parties in turn, and who sought to forward his own interests by falling in with the king's prejudices. George III at once took up the position from which he never swerved. He declared that to grant concessions to the Catholics involved a breach of his coronation oath. No one has ever doubted that the king was absolutely convinced of the serious nature of the objection. Nor can there be any doubt that he had the English people behind him. Both in his peace ministry and in his war ministry Pitt had taken his stand on royal favor and on popular support. Both failed him alike now, and he resigned office at once. The shock to the king's mind was so great that it brought on a fresh attack of insanity. This time, however, the recovery was rapid. On the 14th of March (March 14) 1801 Pitt's resignation was formally accepted, and Addington was installed in office as prime minister.
The king was well pleased with the change. He was never capable of appreciating high merit in any one; and he was unable to perceive that the question on which Pitt had resigned was more than an improper question, with which he ought never to have meddled. "Tell him", he said, in directing his physician to inform Pitt of his restoration to health, "I am now quite well, quite recovered from my illness; but what has he not to answer for, who has been the cause of my having been ill at all?" Addington was a minister after his own mind. Thoroughly honest and respectable, with about the same share of abilities as was possessed by the king himself, he was certainly not likely to startle the world by any flights of genius. But for one circumstance Addington's ministry would have lasted long. So strong was the reaction against the Revolution that the bulk of the nation was almost as suspicious of genius as the king himself. Not only was there no outcry for legislative reforms, but the very idea of reform was unpopular. The country gentlemen were predominant in parliament, and the country gentlemen as a body looked upon Addington with respect and affection. Such a minister was therefore admirably suited to preside over affairs at home in the existing state of opinion. But those who were content with inaction at home would not be content with inaction abroad. In time of peace Addington would have been popular for a season. In time of war even his warmest admirers could not say that he was the man to direct armies in the most terrible struggle which had to that point been conducted by an English government.
For the moment this difficulty was not felt. On the October 1, 1801 preliminaries of peace were signed between England and France, to be converted into the definitive peace of Amiens on the March 27, 1802. The ruler of France was now Napoleon Bonaparte, and few persons in England believed that he had any real purpose of bringing his aggressive violence to an end. "Do you know what I call this peace?" said the king; "an experimental peace, for it is nothing else. But it was unavoidable."
The king was right. On the May 18, 1803 the declaration of war was laid before parliament. The war was accepted by all classes as inevitable, and the French preparations for an invasion of England roused the whole nation to a glow of enthusiasm only equalled by that felt when the Armada threatened its shores. On the 26th of October the king reviewed the London volunteers in Hyde Park. He found himself the center of a great national movement with which he heartily sympathized, and which heartily sympathized with him.
On February 12, 1804 the king's mind was again affected. When he recovered, he found himself in the midst of a ministerial crisis. Public feeling allowed but one opinion to prevail in the country -- that Pitt, not Addington, was the proper man to conduct the administration in time of war. Pitt was anxious to form an administration on a broad basis, including Fox and all prominent leaders of both parties. The king would not hear of the admission of Fox. His dislike of him was personal as well as political, as he knew that Fox had had a great share in drawing the prince of Wales into a life of profligacy. Pitt accepted the king's terms, and formed an administration in which he was the only man of real ability. Eminent men, such as Lord Grenville, refused to join a ministry from which the king had excluded a great statesman on purely personal grounds.
The whole question was reopened on Pitt's death on the 23rd of January (January 23) 1806. This time the king gave way. The ministry of "All the Talents", as it was called, included Fox amongst its members. At first the king was observed to appear depressed at the necessity of surrender. But Fox's charm of manner soon gained upon him. "Mr Fox", said the king, "I little thought that you and I should ever meet again in this place; but I have no desire to look back upon old grievances, and you may rest assured I never shall remind you of them." On the 13th of September (September 13), Fox died, and it was not long before the king and the ministry were openly in collision. The ministry proposed a measure enabling all subjects of the crown to serve in the army and navy in spite of religious disqualifications. The king objected even to so slight a modification of the laws against the Catholics and Dissenters, and the ministers consented to drop the bill. The king asked more than this. He demanded a written and positive engagement that this ministry would never, under any circumstances, propose to him "any measure of concession to the Catholics, or even connected with the question." The ministers very properly refused to bind themselves for the future. They were consequently turned out of office, and a new ministry was formed with the Duke of Portland as first lord of the treasury and Spencer Perceval as its real leader. The spirit of the new ministry was distinct hostility to the Catholic claims. On April 27, 1807 a dissolution of parliament was announced, and a majority in favor of the king's ministry was returned in the elections which speedily followed.
The elections of 1807, like the elections of 1784, gave the king the mastery of the situation. In other respects they were the counterpart of one another. In 1784 the country declared, though perhaps without any clear conception of what it was doing, for a wise and progressive policy. In 1807 it declared for an unwise and retrogressive policy, with a very clear understanding of what it meant. It is in his reliance upon the prejudices and ignorance of the country that the constitutional significance of the reign of George III appears. Every strong government derives its power from its representative character. At a time when the House of Commons was less really representative than at any other, a king was on the throne who represented the country in its good and bad qualities alike, in its hatred of revolutionary violence, its moral sturdiness, its contempt of foreigners, and its defiance of all ideas which were in any way strange. Therefore it was that his success was not permanently injurious to the working of the constitution as the success of Charles I would have been. If he were followed by a king less English than himself, the strength of representative power would pass into other hands than those which held the sceptre.
The overthrow of the ministry of All the Talents was the last political act of constitutional importance in which George III took part. The substitution of Perceval for Portland as the nominal head of the ministry in 1809 was not an event of any real significance, and in 1811 the reign practically came to an end. The king's reason finally broke down after the death of the princess Amelia, his favorite child; and the Prince of Wales, later King George IV, became prince regent. The remaining nine years of George III's life were passed in insanity and blindness, and he died on January 19, 1820.
Father: Prince Frederick (son of King George II; b. Febrary 1,-1707, d. March 31, 1751)
Mother: Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha (b. November 30, 1719, m. May 8, 1736, d. May 8, 1772
Wife: Princess Sophia Charlotte (b. May 19, 1744, m. September 8, 1761, d. November 17, 1818)
Son: King George IV (b. August 12, 1762, d. June 26, 1830)
Son: Prince Frederick (b. August 16, 1763, d. January 5, 1827)
Daughter: Princess Charlotte (b. September 29, 1766, d. October 6, 1828)
Son: Prince Edward Augustus (b. November 2, 1767, d. January 23, 1820)
Daughter: Princess Augusta Sophia (b. November 8, 1768, d. September 22, 1840)
Daughter: Princess Elizabeth (b. May 22, 1770, d. January 10, 1840)
Son: Ernest Augustus I (King of Hanover; b. June 5, 1771, d. November 19, 1851)
UK Monarch 1760-1820
Risk Factors: Gout
http://www.nndb.com/people/948/000068744/
New!
NNDB MAPPER
Create a map starting with
King George III
Requires Flash 7+ and Javascript.
Do you know something we don't?
Submit a correction or make a comment about this profile
[14] http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/king-george-endorses-new-england-restraining-act
[15] That Dark and Bloody River, Allan W. Eckert
[16] Draper Series, Volume III, Frontier Defense on the Upper Ohio, 1777-1778 pgs 252-253
[17]Journal of the Grenadier Battalion von Platte. The Hessians and the Other Auxiliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War by Edward J. Lowell
[18] Pennsylvania Packet, March 30, 1782 (No. 805).
Washington-Irvine Correspondence, by Butterfield, 1882
[19] Pennsylrania Packet, March 30, 1782 (No. 865).
[20] In Search of Turkey Foot Road, page 99.
[21] The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume V, 1821-1824
[22] http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/u/d/Penny-J-Gudgeon/ODT6-0001.html
[23] The Sons of the Republic of Texas, sent by John Moreland.
[24] The Sons of the Republic of Texas, sent by John Moreland.
[25] http://www.members.tripod.com/~penningtons/scv1.htm
[26] http://www.genuinekansas.com/history_samuel_j_jones_sheriff_kansas.htm
[27] http://holydays.tripod.com/linc.htm
[28] http://www.mobile96.com/cw1/Vicksburg/TFA/24Iowa-1.html
[29] http://whitsett-wall.com/Whitsett/whitsett_simeon.htm
[30] http://whitsett-wall.com/Whitsett/whitsett_simeon.htm
King of Louisiana, 1862-1865, and Other Government Work, by Raymond H. Banks, 2005
[31] Screened by a strong cavalry force under the command of Brig. Gen. Albert Lee, the regiment started at 6 a.m. on Thursday, March 31. Crossing the stream on a pontoon bridge, the rugged soldiers from Iowa followed the course of Cane River for sixteen miles through Cloutierville and went into camp one mile beyond the town.
(Letter,William T. Rigby to April 2, 1864.)
(William T. Rigby and the Red Oak Boys in Louisiana by Terrence J. Winschel)
http://www.lib.uiowa.edu/spec-coll/bai/winschel.htm
[32] Annotated by Jeffery Lee Goodlove
[33] Terezinska Pametni Kniha, Zidovske Obeti Nacistickych Deportaci Z Cech A Moravy 1941-1945 Dil Druhy
[34] http://www.streatfield.info/p174.htm
[35] Winton Goodlove papers.
[36] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[37] http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono1.pdf
[38] http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono1.pdf
[39] http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono1.pdf
[40] LBJ Presidential Library, Austin TX. February 11, 2012
[41] Jimmy Carter, The Liberal Left and World Chaos by Mike Evans, page 497
[42] Wikipedia
[43] Wikipedia
[44] Wikipedia
No comments:
Post a Comment