https://www.facebook.com/ThisDayInGoodloveHistory
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jeff-Goodlove/323484214349385
Join me on http://www.linkedin.com/
Jeffery Lee 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.
George H. Grant (1st great granduncle of ex)
Henrietta Philippe (8th cousin 10x removed)
Isabella Bedford (2nd cousin 20x removed)
George F. LeClere (1st cousin 2x removed)
William LeClere (1st cousin 2x removed)
Augustine Smith (2nd cousin 9x removed)
June 16, 1525: – Henry VIII (7th cousin 15x removed) makes his illegitimate son, Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond (8th cousin 14x removed). [1]
June 16, 1548: A French fleet lands at Leith five thousand soldiers. D'Epé, who commands them, forthwith lays siege to Haddington, after reinforcing his army with eight thousand Scots. [2]
June 16, 1572: The commissioners of Queen Elizabeth (8th cousin 14x removed), attended by the Earl of Shrewsbury, present Mary with a memorial, containing thirteen articles of accusation against her. [3]
June 1600: - The Privy Council declares that only The Globe Theatre and The Swan Theatre can stage plays. [4]
June 1601– The Irish rebellion is crushed by Lord Mountjoy who had succeeded Essex as Lieutenant of Ireland. [5]
June 1610: After John Smith's departure, relations with the Powhatan deteriorated and many settlers died from famine and disease in the winter of 1609-10. Jamestown was about to be abandoned by its inhabitants when Baron De La Warr (also known as Delaware) arrived in June 1610 with new supplies and rebuilt the settlement--the Delaware River and the colony of Delaware were later named after him. John Rolfe (4th great grandfather of the wife of the brother in law of the 1st great grandnephew of the husband of the 2nd cousin 9x removed) also arrived in Jamestown in 1610 and two years later cultivated the first tobacco there, introducing a successful source of livelihood that would have far-reaching importance for Virginia. [6]
June 16, 1612: Birthdate of Murad IV. During his reign as Sultan, Murad executed Rabbi Yehuda Kovo over a dispute revolving around the quality of cloth being supplied by the Jews of Salonika for army uniforms and the amount of taxes to be paid.[7]
June 1617: Oliver Cromwell went on to study at Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, which was then a recently founded college with a strong Puritan ethos. He left in June 1617 without taking a degree, immediately after the death of his father.[14] Early biographers claim he then attended Lincoln's Inn, but there is no record of him in the Inn's archives. Fraser (1973) concludes he likely did train at one of the London Inns of Court during this time. His grandfather, his father, and two of his uncles had attended Lincoln's Inn, and Cromwell sent his son Richard there in 1647.[15]
Cromwell probably returned home to Huntingdon after his father's death, for his mother was widowed and his seven sisters were unmarried, and he, therefore, was needed at home to help his family.[16] [8]
June 16, 1644: Henrietta of England (8th cousin 10x removed)
Duchess of Orléans
.jpg)
Henrietta Anne, Duchess of Orleans by Pierre Mignard.jpg
Painting by Mignard
Spouse
Philippe of France, Duke of Orléans
Detail
Issue
Marie Louise, Queen of Spain
Anne Marie, Queen of Sardinia
House
House of Stuart
Father
Charles I of England
Mother
Henrietta Maria of France
Born
June 16, 1644
Bedford House, Exeter, England
Died
June 30, 1670(1670-06-30) (aged 26)
Château de Saint Cloud, France
Burial
July 4, 1670
Royal Basilica of Saint Denis, France
Religion
Church of England
Roman Catholic
Princess Henrietta of England (Henrietta; June 16, 1644 (26 June n.s.) – June 30, 1670) was born a Princess of England and Scotland as the youngest daughter of King Charles I of England and his consort Henrietta Maria of France. Fleeing England with her governess at the age of three, she moved to the court of her first cousin Louis XIV of France, where she was known as Minette.[1] After she married Philippe of France, brother of King Louis XIV, known as Monsieur at court, she became known as Madame.[2] Very popular with the court in no small part due to her flirtatious nature, her marriage was marked by frequent tensions.[3] [9]
Princess Henrietta was born on June 16, 1644, on the eve of the Second Battle of Newbury during the Civil War, at Bedford House in Exeter, a seat of William Russell, 5th Earl of Bedford (1613-1700), who had recently returned to the Royalist side. Her father was King Charles I of England, her mother the youngest daughter of Henry IV of France and Marie de' Medici. All her life, Henrietta would enjoy a close relationship with her mother, Queen Henrietta Maria. Her connections with the court of France as niece of King Louis XIII and first cousin of Louis XIV would prove to be very useful later in life. [10]
Titles and styles
June 16, 1644 – March 31, 1661 Her Royal Highness Princess Henrietta of England[11]
Princess Henrietta of England
June 16, 1644
June 30, 1670
Married Philip I, Duke of Orléans (1640–1701) in 1661. Had issue. Among her descendants were King Louis XVI of France, also executed by beheading, and the kings of Sardinia and Italy.
[12]
June 1645: At the critical Battle of Naseby in June 1645, the New Model Army smashed the King's major army. Cromwell led his wing with great success at Naseby, again routing the Royalist cavalry. [13]
June 1646: Cromwell and Fairfax took the formal surrender of the Royalists at Oxford in June 1646.
Cromwell's military style
Cromwell had no formal training in military tactics, and followed the common practice of ranging his cavalry in three ranks and pressing forward, relying on impact rather than firepower. His strengths were an instinctive ability to lead and train his men, and his moral authority. In a war fought mostly by amateurs, these strengths were significant and are likely to have contributed to the discipline of his cavalry.[30]
Cromwell introduced close-order cavalry formations, with troopers riding knee to knee; this was an innovation in England at the time, and was a major factor in his success. He kept his troops close together following skirmishes where they had gained superiority, rather than allowing them to chase opponents off the battlefield. This facilitated further engagements in short order, which allowed greater intensity and quick reaction to battle developments. This style of command was decisive at both Marston Moor and Naseby.[31] [14]
June 1647: A troop of cavalry under Cornet George Joyce seized the King from Parliament's imprisonment. After the King was in arm's reach of Cromwell, he was eager to find out what conditions the King would be willing to compromise on if his authority was restored. The King appeared to be willing to compromise, so Cromwell employed his son-in-law, Henry Ireton, to draw up proposals for a constitutional settlement. Proposals were drafted multiple times with different changes until finally the "Head of the Proposals" pleased Cromwell in principle and would allow for further negotiations.[32] It was designed to check the powers of the executive, to set up regularly elected parliaments, and to restore a non-compulsory Episcopalian settlement.[33] [15]
June 16, 1567: A great portion of the nobility proclaim, at Edinburgh, a bond of association, by which they oblige themselves to bring Bothwell (husband of the 5th cousin 13x removed) to justice for the murder of Darnley (husband of the 5th cousin 13x removed).
The same day, the Earls of Morton, AthoU, Marr, Glencairn, and Lords Sempill, J. Graham, Sanquhar, and Ochiltree, sign the warrant for their Queen's imprisonment. [16] Mary Queen of Scots (5th cousin 13x removed) is imprisoned in Lochlevan. [17]
June 16, 1567: –July 24, 1567:– Mary Queen of Scots is forced by the Scottish lords to abdicate in favour of her baby son James (future James VI and I) (6th cousin 12x removed). [18]
June 1664
A reference to Andrew Harrison (8th great grandfather) is found in’ Tyler’s Quarterly Magazine, Volume 4, page 189 ~—Abstract~To all Christian people to whom these presents shall come, I, John Wright of the County of Westmoreland, Gent, send ‘greetings . . . that... . I . . . grant . . . to Francis Thornton . .,. tract containing . . . 1000 acres . . being a part of a patent formerly granted to Maj. John Washington, for 1700 acres, dated June Ano. Domini 1664; bounded by the land sold to William Freake; Wm. Wallis ‘s land in. Possession of John Houxford and Thomas Tippitt, including Andrew Harrison’s Plantation — scituate . . within the Parish of St. Maryes in the County of Richmond.[19]
Was John Washington a relative of George? JG
June 1665: In London, 6,137 people die of the Bubonic Plague by June.[20]
June 16, 1666: Capt. Augustine Smith8 (2nd cousin 9x removed) [Lawrence Smith7, Christopher Smith6, Thomas Smythe5, Thomas Smythe4, John Smythe3, Richard2, William1] (b. June 16, 1666 / d. abt. 1736 in Orange Co. VA) married a lady named Mary with no children recorded. He remarried to Susanna Walters (d. abt. 1725).
More about Augustine Smith
He was named for his great-uncle, Augustine Warner. (Father in law of the 1st cousin 10x removed)
According to the Article entitled "Thomas Smith of Fairfax County, Virginia," by Henry G. Taliaferro, in Volume 40, Number 1 (January-March, 1996) of The Virginia Genealogist: This Augustine Smith is sometimes confused with his distant kinsman, Augustine Smith of "Purton," Gloucester Co, who married Sarah Carver, February 9, 1711. The Augustine of "Purton" was the son of John and Mary (Warner) Smith, grandson of Augustine, Jr and Mildred (Reade) Warner, and great-grandson of Augustine, Sr. and Mary (Townley) Warner.
Augustine Smith was the son of Lawrence Smith per page 54 of "Colonial Caroline: A History of Caroline County, Virginia, " (1954) by T. E Campbell. Augustine commanded the first garrison at Fredericksburg, and had been public surveyor for St Mary's Parish, whose people did not like him. However, the Williamsburg authorities made him surveyor of both Spotsylvania and Essex Counties when the upper end of St Mary's Parish was split. The feud grew greater through the years as planters tried many tactics to get rid of him. A new county (Caroline) seemed a plausible way.
June 1669: Charles II’s (8th cousin 10x removed)wife Queen Catherine of Braganza (wife of the 8th cousin 10x removed)was unable to produce an heir; her four pregnancies had ended in miscarriages and stillbirths in 1662, February 1666, May 1668 and June 1669.[1] Charles's heir presumptive was therefore his unpopular Catholic brother, James, Duke of York (8th cousin 10x removed). Partly in order to assuage public fears that the royal family was too Catholic, Charles agreed that James's daughter, Mary (9thcousin 9x removed), should marry the Protestant William of Orange.(9th cousin 9x removed)[51][21][22]
June 16, 1669: Augustine Warner Smith , b. June 16, 1669[i][vi]; m. February 9, 1711 to Sarah Carver.[23].
.June 1670: Henrietta was instrumental in negotiating the Secret Treaty of Dover prior to her unexpected death in June 1670. Jacobite claims to the throne of Great Britain following the death of Henry Benedict Stuart descend from her through her daughter Anne Marie, Queen of Sardinia. (9th cousin 9x removed) [24]
June 16, 1681 – (Versaille) January 23, 1682 to Sr. Lois and Sr. de Villers silversmiths on account for the silver balustrade that they are making for the king's (Louis XIV)(brother in law of the 8th cousin 10x removed) use (four payments): 88,457 livres 5 sols. [25]
(b. June 16, 1689) Augustine Smith [26]
June 16, 1716: On June 16, 1716, Alexander Spotswood, Governor of the Colony of Virginia, and a gallant soldier who had served under Marlborough in the English wars, rode, at the head of a dauntless band of cavaliers, down the quiet street of quaint old Williamsburg.
The adventurous spirits of this party of men urged them toward the land of the setting sun, that unknown west far beyuond the blue crested mountains risng so grandly before them.[27]
June 15, 1743:
Louise Françoise de Bourbon, Mademoiselle de Nantes, duchesse de Bourbon, princesse de Condé
June 1, 1673
June 16, 1743
Legitimised on December 20, 1673. Married Louis de Bourbon, duc d'Enghien, (later duc de Bourbon, and then prince de Condé). Had issue.
[28]
Sunday June 16, 1754:
The Virginia Regiment leaves the Great Meadows to continue working on the road to Redstone Creek (present day Brownsville, PA). The South Carolina company refuses to help with the work unless paid extra wages for the manual labor, a customary practice. George Washington (grandnephew of the wife of the 1st cousin 10x removed) did not have money to spare so the South Carolinians stay at the Great Meadows. [29]
To ROBERT DINWIDDIE
Fort Loudoun, June 16, 1757,
Honbie. Sir: This instant the enclosed letters came to r hands. I have not lost a moment’s time in transmitting th to you, as I look upon the intelligence to be of the utmost importance. If the enemy are coming down in such numbe and with such a train of artillery, as we are bid to expect, Fort Cumberland must inevitably fall into their hands, as no tim efforts can be made to relieve the garrison. I send you a co of a council of war held upon this occasion. The advice I tend to pursue, and until I shall receive orders how to conth myself. It is morally certain, that the next object, which French have in view, is Fort Loudoun, and that is yet in a ye untenable posture. They have no roads for carriages into a other province, but thro’ this; and there lies a quantity of stoi here, belonging to his Majesty and to this colony, very mu exposed and unguarded.
I shall not take up your time Sir, with a tedious detail. Y will be a sufficient judge of the present situation of affairs, frc those circumstances already related. I have written to the coi manding officers of Fairfax, Prince William, and Culpep
1757]
(a copy of which letters I enclose your Honor) to march part of their militia to this place immediately, that no time may be lost. I shall you may be assured, Sir, make the best defence I can, if attacked. I have Wrote to Colonel Stanwix an account of this affair, and enclosed him copies of the letters and council
of war.[30] I am, &c.
AT A COUNCIL OF WAR HELD AT FORT LOUDOUN [VIRGINIA} THURSDAY, THE 16TH. DAY OF JUNE, AT 2 O’CLOCK IN THE MORNING 1757
Colonel George Washington, President.
Members
Capt. Thomas Waggener Capt. Robt. Stewart
Capt. McNeill ~ Captain Gist
Lieutenant Campbell ~ Lt. Buckner
Ensign Crawford (6th great grandfather) ~ Ensign Roy
Ensign Russell
The Colonel laid before the council a Letter from Capt. Dagworthy,[31] and another which he received from Maj. James Livingston, both dated at Fort Cumberland the 4th. Instant; signifying that they had just received intelligence from six Cherokee indians who went out upon a Scout with Capt. Spotswood towards Fort DuQuesne; that a large Body Df French and Indians, with a train of Artillery, were actually marched from Fort DuQuesne with a design, as they conceived, to make ao attempt on Fort Cumberland.
And after laying before them the strength and dispersed Situation ~ the Troops in the pay of the Colony; desired their opinion, whether it was most advisable, with what force we cou’d raise immediately to attempt the relief of Fort Cumberland, or to remain here and endeavo~ to assemble a sufficient force to put this place in a posture of defence (which is at present not tenable) ‘till we should have further Orden how to act?
It was unanimously agreed, that, if the French had crossed the Monon. gahela the roth. instant, as these Indians declare, it is impossible to assemble our dispersed Troops, and march them to Fort Cumberland before the place is invested. That all our forces, their junction prac. ticable, are so inconsiderable, compared with the strength of the Enemy, according to our intelligence, which can admit of no doubt; as a train of artillery is of too great importance to them to risque with a small body of troops; We have great reason to think, that it wou’d be only to expose ourselves to a certain defeat, the consequence of which would inevitably be the leaving this place (the depositary of all His Majestys and Countrys Stores of every kind) naked and defenceless: which wou’d be attended with the immediate Evacuation of that part of the Country, from whence alone Subsistance for any considerable number of Troops cou’d be drawn: which at this juncture wou’d be an irreparable loss and probably be productive of the most fatal consequences to this Colony.
The Colonel likewise desired to know whether the Council judged it most expedient to continue the few troops now at Maidstone, and those dispersed thro’ the little Forts on the South Branch; or to order them on the Branch, with the country men in that Settlement, to the most advan. tageous post there; whilst their women and children shou’d retire to the interior Settlements. Or to evacuate the whole,and reinforce these troops here, with their united Garrisons?
It is the opinion of the Council that as reinforcing this Garrison is absolutely necessary, the detached enfeebled situation of the Garrisons on the South Branch must make them fall an easy prey to the Enemy, and that as drawing them all to one place on the Branch would be giving up all that Settlement except that place, which (supposing it wou’d be maintained) wou’d by no means be of such consequence as reinforcing is important place. That therefore they ought to be ordered hither mediately.
Wm. Crawford Jno. McNeill G. Washington
Ja’s Roy Christo’r Gist Thomas Waggener
Henry Russell Jno. Campbell Robert Stewart Mordec. Buckner
MEMORANDUM
The following account sent to Col. Stanwix and Governor Dinwiddie together with the Council of War.
Fort Loudoun, June 16, I757.
The number of men fit for Duty in the Virginia Regiment, exclusive the Detachment gone for Carolina; where Stationed, and the distance each Garrison from this place.
Men Miles
At Fort Loudoun 1oo
At Maidstone 6o distance 36
At Edwards 16 do 22
At Pearsals 35 do 50
At Fort Pleasant 30 do 70
At Butter-milk Ft. 28 do 78
At Harness’s Ft, 27 do 81
At Powers Mill 28 do 90
At Vass’s 6o do 210
384[32]
June 16, 1769; At home all day. In the morning Mr. Valentine Crawford came here and in the afternoon Col. Fairfax and Lady. [33]
June 16, 1771: At Kispoko Town (2-3 miles downstream from present Circleville OH) Marmaduke Van Swearingen (Blue Jacket) falls 50 yards short of completing a quarter mile long gauntlet, his designated task prior to being adopted by the Shawnee. However, he had travelled much further than the Shawnee had anticipated. He would be adopted.[34]
IRVINE TO WASHINGTON.
FORT PITT~ June 16, 1782.
Sir: — In my letter of the 21st of May, I mentioned to your excellency that a body of volunteer militia was assembling at the Mingo Bottom to go against Sandusky. The inclosed letters, one from Colonel Williamson,[35] second in command, and the other from Lieutenant Rose, my aid-de-camp, contain all the particulars of this transaction which have yet come to my knowledge. I am of opinion had they reached the place in seven days, instead of ten, which might have been done, especially as they were chiefly mounted, they would have succeeded. They should also have pushed time advantage evidently gained at the commencement of the action. They failed in another point which they had my advice and indeed positive orders for, namely, to make the last day’s march as long as possible and attack the place in the night. But they halted in the evening within nine miles and fired their rifles at seven in the morning before they marched. These people now seem convinced that they cannot perform as much by themselves as they sometime since thought they could. Perhaps it is right that they should put more dependence on regular troops. I am sorry I have not more to afford them assistance.[36]
This letter differs somewhat from the copy retained by Irvine, which reads as follows:
“FORT PITT, June 16, 1782.
“Sir: — In my letter of the 21st of May, I mentioned to your excellency that a body of volunteer militia were assembling at the Mingo Bottom to go against Sandusky. The enclosed letters, one from Colonel Williamson, second in command, and the other from Lieutenant Rose, my aid-de-camp, contain all the particulars of this transaction which have yet come to my knowledge. I am of opinion the cause of their failure was owing to the slowness of the (continued July 1, 1782 march, and not pushing the advantage they had evidently gained at their first commencing the action. They were ten days on the march, when it might have been performed in seven, particularly as they were chiefly mounted; my advice was to attack the town in the night, but instead thereof they halted within ten miles in the evening and did not take up their line of march till seven in the morning. These people now seem convinced that they cannot perform as much by themselves as they sometime since thought they could; perhaps it is right that they should put more dependence on regular troops. I am sorry I have not more to afford them assistance.” [Immediately following the word “knowledge, “in this copy, are the following words, which have a line drawn over them: “Dr. Knight, mentioned in Mr. Rose’s letter, is one of the regimental surgeons of this garrison, whom I spared to Colonel Crawford and is also missing.’ ‘I
Of the volunteers who went upon the expedition against Sandusky, about two-thirds were from Washington county; the residue, except a few from Ohio county, Virginia, were from Westmoreland. The final rendezvous was at the Mingo bottom on the west side of the Ohio river, where, on the twenty-fourth day of May, four hundred and eighty, finally, congregated. They distriboted themselves into eighteen companies. The general officers elected were: For colonel-commandant, Colonel Wm. Crawford; for four field majors (to rank in the order named), David Williamson, Thomas Gaddis, John McClelland, and James Brenton; for brigade major, Daniel Leet. Dr. John Knight went as surgeon; John Rose, as aid. The guides were Thomas Nicholson, John Slover and Jonathan Zane.
The volunteers began their march the next day for Sandusky. All were mounted. On the fourth of June, the enemy were encountered a short distance north of what is now Upper Sandusky, Ohio. They numbered something over three hundred, consisting of about two hundred savages —Wyandots, Delawares, Mingoes, and “Lake Indians “—and a company of rangers from Detroit, under command of Captain William Caldwell. A battle ensued, with the advantnge on the side of the Americans. The loss of the enemy was five Idled—four Indians and a ranger—and eleven wounded, including Capt. Caldwell; the American loss was five killed and nineteen wounded. The next day (June 5th) the enemy were re-enforced by not less than one hundred and forty Shawanese and by a small detachment of rangers. Crawford called a council of war and it was decided to retreat.
The return march began soon after dark of the same day, but was attended with considerable confusion. The main portion of the retreating army was joined the next morning by some straggling parties, so that the whole numbered about three hundred; and the retreat was continued. Quite a number were missing; among them were Col. Crawford, Dr. Knight, Major McClelland and. John Slover. In the afternoon (June 6th), the volunteers were overtaken by a force of the enemy, in what is now Crawford county, Ohio, and a warm engagement ensued; but the pursurers were driven off, with a loss to the Americans of three killed and eight wounded. The expedition finally reached the Mingo bottom on their return; and re-crossed the Ohio on the thirteenth of June, having with them a number of their wounded. The next day the army disbanded. The entire loss was about fifty men. Of’ those taken by the enemy, only two escaped — Dr. Knight and John Slover. A number of the captured were tomahawked; but Colonel Crawford, his son-in-law (Wm. Harrison), and a few others (all of whom had been made prisoners), were tortured at the stake. The first named perished miserably, amidst the most terrible suffering, on the eleventh of June, in what is now Wyandot county, Ohio. (For an extended narrative of this campaign, see “An Historical Account of the Expedition against Sandusky, under Col. William Crawford, in 1782; With Biographical Sketches, Personal Reminiscences, and Descriptions of Interesting Localities; Including, also, Details of the Disastrous Retreat, the Barbarities of the Savages, and the Awful Death of Crawford by Torture.”)
WASHINGTON TO PRESLEY NEVILLE.
PHILADELPHIA, June 16, 1794.
SIR :—I should have written you at an earlier period, but for the extreme hurry into which I was thrown at the close of the session of Congress, which did not terminate before Monday last, and from my not having adverted, in time, to the Pittsburg post-day of last week. This letter, as I shall set out for Virginia tomorrow, is left to go by next Saturday’s mail.
Inclosed is a blank power, authorizing Mr. Charles Morgan, or any other with whose name you shall fill it, to collect the rents arising from my land in Fayette and Washington counties, in this State, together with such arrearages as may be due for the preceding years, if any there be. Another blank is also left, which I pray you to fill up with the percentage to be allowed as a compensation for the trouble and expense of collection. The inducements to this are, first, because I do not recollect what Colonel Cannon[37] has been allowed for his services; and, secondly, because there is no invariable allowance established, places and circumstances varying it.
A letter from Colonel Cannon is also inclosed, requesting him to give the necessary information to his successor, and to desire that he would discontinue all further agency in my business. This letter is left open, for your insertion of the name of his successor. The emolument arising from this collection is too trifling to become an object worthy your acceptance, or I should never have inquired for another before I had offered it to you.
From the experience of many years, I have found distant property in land more pregnant of perplexities than profit. I have therefore resolved to sell all I hold on the Western waters, if I can obtain the prices which I conceive their quality, their situation, and other advantages would authorize me to expect. Conversing with Mr. Ross, one of your senators, on this subject, a day or two before he left the city, he gave it to me as his opinion that the present juncture was favorable for the sale of my land in this State, and was so obliging as to offer his services to effect it. He thought the quality of my land in Fayette county, together with the improvements and show of iron-ore within less than thirty yards of the mill door, ought on credit to command six dollars [an acre]. The other I have always held at four dollars. The former tract contains 1,644 acres; the latter, 2,813 acres by the patent, but it measures more than 3,000 acres by subsequent survey.
If, Sir, as you live at Pittsburg, the probable place of inquiring after land in that country, you should find it convenient, and not militating against any plans of your own, to make mention of mine, and to aid Mr. Ross in the sale of these tracts, it would oblige me.
If a fourth of the purchase money is paid at the time of conveyance, a credit of four, five, or six years might be allowed for the remainder, provided it is fully secured, and the interest thereon regularly paid at one of the banks in this state Baltimore, Georgetown, or Alexandria. To receive this without trouble, and with punctuality, as it becomes due, will be insisted upon.
My land on the Ohio and Great Kenhawa rivers, amounting to 32,373 acres, was once sold for sixty-five thousand French crowns, to a French gentleman, who was very competent to the payment at the time the contract was made; but, getting a little embarrassed in his finances by the revolution in his country, by mutual agreement the bargain was canceled. Lately, I have been in treaty for the same land, at three dollars and a third per acre for the whole quantity; but, being connected with other matters, it is not likely to result in a bargain, as I once expected, and therefore I am at liberty to seek another market.
To give a further description of these lands than to say they are the cream of the country in which they are, that they were the first choice of it, and that the whole is on the margin of the rivers, and bounded thereby for fifty-eight miles, would be unnecessary to you, who must have a pretty accurate idea of them and their value. But it may not be amiss to add, for the information of others, that the quantity before mentioned is contained in seven surveys, to wit: Three on the Ohio, east side, between the mouths of the Little and Great Kenhawas. The first is the first large bottom below the mouth of the Little Kenhawa, containing 2,314 acres, and is bounded by the river five miles and a quarter. The second is the fourth large bottom, on the same side of the river, about sixteen miles lower down, containing 2,448 acres, bounded by the river three miles and a quarter. The third is the next large bottom, three miles and a half below, and opposite nearly to the Great Bend, containing 4,395 acres, with a margin on the river of five miles. The other four tracts are on the Great Kenhawa. The first of them contains 10,990 acres, on the west side, and begins within two or three miles of the mouth of it, and is bounded thereby for more than seventeen miles. The second is on the east side of the river, a little higher up, containing 7,276 acres, and bounded by the stream thirteen miles. The other two are at the mouth of Cole river, on both sides and in the fork thereof, containing together 4,950 acres, and, like the others, are all interval land, having a front upon the water of twelve miles.
Besides these, I have the Round Bottom, opposite to Pipe creek, about fifteen miles below Wheeling, which contains 587 acres,[38] with two miles and a half front on the river, and of quality inferior to none thereon; and 234 acres at the Great-Meadows, on Braddock’s road, with the allowances.
For the whole of these tracts taken together, I would allow seven years’ credit, without requiring a fourth of the purchase money to be paid down, provided the principal is amply secured, and the interest also, in the manner before mentioned; for to have no disappointment or trouble in the receipt of this must be a sine qud non. If the tracts are sold separately, I should expect a fourth of the purchase to be paid down, and more than three dollars and a quarter per acre for the Round Bottom and the tract of 10,990 acres on the Great Kenhawa, knowing from my own view the extraordinary value of these tracts. With very great esteem and regard, I am, etc.[39]
June 16, 1812: - Land Office Military Warrant 6014 (our soldier's name was misspelled!): To the Principal Surveyor of the Land set apart for the Officers and Soldiers of the Commonwealth of Virginia: THIS shall be your WARRANT to survey and lay off in one or more surveys, for Representatives of Benjamin Harris, their heirs or assigns, the quantity of Four Thousand acres of Land, due unto the said Representatives in consideration of the said Benjamin Harris services for three years as a Captain of the Virginia Continental line agreeably to a certificate from the Governor and Council, which is received into the Land Office. Given under my hand, and the seal of said Office, this twentieth day of April in the year one thousand Eight hundred and twelve -
4000 Acres
Chas. Blagrove
Regr - Land Off
For value received I do hereby assign unto William Fulton Eight Hundred acres of the within Warrant Number Six Thousand and fourteen -
June 16th 1812.
Witness present
Eliza Fulton
John A. Fulton
Batteal Harrison the legal Representative of Benjamin Harrison [40]
June 16, 1812: Great Britain revokes the law authorizing “impressment” but by the time Washington hears the news several weeks later, it is too late.
June 16, 1821: Andrew Jackson moved quarters to Manuel Gonzalez’s house northwest of Pensacola.[41]
June 16, 1846: The Papal conclave of 1846 concluded. Pope Pius IX was chosen to lead the Catholic Church, beginning the longest reign in the history of the post-apostolic papacy. The papal reign of Pius IX was marked by a variety of reactionary policies as he sought to deal with the loss of the papal temporal power to the emerging united nation of Italy. The Pope returned those Jews under his control to the Ghetto. “Pius IX was the Pope who decided in 1867 to raise to sainthood one of sixteenth-century Spain's notorious grand inquisitors, Don Pedro Arbues de Epilae. He was considered a martyr (witness to the Catholic faith) after some of the family of his Jewish victims managed to assassinate him -- and then suffered grievously themselves.-- It was the conviction of the great liberal theologian of that time, Father Dollinger, that canonizing the inquisitor "served the pope's campaign of riding roughshod over liberal Catholics as well as Jews. The pope was celebrating a man who had sanctioned compulsory baptism of Jews, then inflicted judicial torture to make sure these conversions were sincere.” The most stinging example of the Pope’s anti-Jewish views and behavior is abduction of a Jewish child named Edgardo Mortara. When Pious IX was beatified in 2000, the ADL issued the following statement which summarizes the event. “The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed concern at the Vatican’s beatification of Pope Pius IX, who was responsible for the 1858 abduction of a six-year old Jewish child. Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement: "The beatification of Pius IX is troubling for the Jewish community. Pius was responsible for the case of Edgardo Mortara, who at the age of six was abducted from his family in Bologna and taken to the Vatican by Papal police after it was reported that the Jewish child has been secretly baptized. Many European heads of state protested the 1858 kidnapping, as did Jewish leadership. As a result, Pius blamed Rome’s Jews for what he believed was a widespread Protestant conspiracy to defeat the papacy and levied medieval restrictions on the community. While ADL respects the beatification process as a matter for the Catholic Church alone, we find the selection of Pius IX as inappropriate based on policies he pursued as the head of the Church. It is in the context of the many years of positive progress in Catholic-Jewish relations, including the historic visit of Pope John Paul II to Israel and his asking for the forgiveness of the Jewish people, that the beatification of Pius IX, whose role in denying Edgardo Mortara his family and his right to be who he was, is most unfortunate."[42]
June 16, 1849
Age 53
Burial of James Polk
Nashville, TN, USA
[43]
Representatives Hall Lecturn
© Abraham Lincoln Online
House Divided Speech
Springfield, Illinois
June 16, 1858
On June 16, 1858, more than 1,000 Republican delegates met in the Springfield, Illinois, statehouse for the Republican State Convention. At 5:00 p.m. they chose Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. At 8:00 p.m. Lincoln delivered this address to his Republican colleagues in the Hall of Representatives. The title reflects part of the speech's introduction, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," a concept familiar to Lincoln's audience as a statement by Jesus recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).
Even Lincoln's friends believed the speech was too radical for the occasion. His law partner, William H. Herndon, believed Lincoln was morally courageous but politically incorrect. Lincoln read the speech to him before delivering it, referring to the "house divided" language this way: "The proposition is indisputably true ... and I will deliver it as written. I want to use some universally known figure, expressed in simple language as universally known, that it may strike home to the minds of men in order to rouse them to the peril of the times."
Reflecting on it several years later, Herndon said, "Through logic inductively seen, Lincoln as a statesman, and political philosopher, announced an eternal truth -- not only as broad as America, but covers the world."
Another lawyer, Leonard Swett, said the speech defeated Lincoln in the Senate campaign. In 1866 he wrote to Herndon complaining, "Nothing could have been more unfortunate or inappropriate; it was saying first the wrong thing, yet he saw it was an abstract truth, but standing by the speech would ultimately find him in the right place."
Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.
If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.
We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.
Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.
In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.
Have we no tendency to the latter condition?
Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning.
But, so far, Congress only, had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.
The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition.
Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition.
This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.
This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.
That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, not to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."
Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "Squatter Sovereignty," and "Sacred right of self-government."
"But," said opposition members, "let us be more specific -- let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.
While the Nebraska Bill was passing through congress, a law case involving the question of a negroe's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave, for a long time in each, was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negroe's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case.
Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: "That is a question for the Supreme Court."
The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory.
The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible, echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement.
The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument.
The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever might be.
Then, in a few days, came the decision.
The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it.
The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained.
At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that squabble the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind -- the principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the end.
And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle, is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding -- like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand -- helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make their own constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.
The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care-not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained.
\ The working points of that machinery are:
First, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States.
This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of this provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that--
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."
Secondly, that "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory.
This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.
Thirdly, that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master.
This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.
Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, to not care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.
This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.
It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at all.
Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.
Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried.
Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision?
These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall.
And why the hasty after indorsements of the decision by the President and others?
We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few -- not omitting even scaffolding -- or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.
It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska Bill, the people of a State, as well as Territory, were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution."
Why mention a State? They were legislating for territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same?
While the opinion of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a State, to exclude it.
Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Macy sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill -- I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other.
The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction."
In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.
And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision an be maintained when made.
Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States.
Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown.
We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.
To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.
This is what we have to do.
But how can we best do it?
There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is, with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed.
They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it.
A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas' superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade.
Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And, unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.
He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade -- how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free" -- unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.
Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday -- that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong.
But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference?
Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas' position, question his motives, or do ought that can be personally offensive to him.
Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle.
But clearly, he is not now with us -- he does not pretend to be -- he does not promise to ever be.
Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends -- those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work -- who do care for the result.
Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong.
We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us.
Of strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy.
Did we brave all then to falter now? -- now -- when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent?
The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail -- if we stand firm, we shall not fail.
Wise councils may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later the victory is sure to come. [44]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 16, 1862: Battle of Successionville, SC.[45]
Thurs. June 16, 1864:
In camp hot eday
On fatigue duty to draw rations
Wrote to a James Hunter
William Harrison Goodlove Civil War Diary, 24th Iowa Infantry[46]
June 16, 1898
(Pleasant Valley) Miss Cora Goodlove ended a most successful term of school in this district Friday with a picnic at her home. All report a good time in spite of showers. (Winton Goodlove note:The picnic was probably at the home of Cora’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. Wm. H. Goodlove.)[47]
June 16, 1902 – The Wizard of Oz opens on stage at the Grand Opera House in Chicago starring Fred Stone as the Scarecrow and Dave Montgomery as the Tin Woodman. Baum is called to the stage repeatedly by a cheering audience that sits and applauds till after midnight. He makes a gracious speech, crediting the success of the production to its many talented contributors.
Within weeks Montgomery and Stone are the best-known comic team in America. The roles of Dorothy (Anna Laughlin) and the Cowardly Lion (Arthur Hill) are secondary to those of the vaudeville pair.
The Wizard of Oz is directed for the stage by Julian Mitchell, who had written Montgomery and Stone to return from England for the parts. Mitchell originally cast Montgomery as Sir Wiley Gyle. He said the Tin Woodman’s part had to be played by a tenor and be a love interest. The two partners, however, insisted that Montgomery play the Tin Woodman. Mitchell invents several additional characters. Baum uses one of them, Pastoria II, a former King of Oz, in later books.
Significant plot changes from the book include cutting the Wicked Witch of the West from the story entirely, and turning Dorothy’s dog Toto into Imogene the Cow—played by Fred Stone’s brother, Edwin. The rescue of Dorothy and her friends from the deadly poppy field is accomplished by a snowfall ordered by the Good Witch Locasta. This production is based on a much-revised version of the September 18, 1901, script, which had been more faithful to the book.
At least 10 pieces of sheet music are published that combine Baum lyrics with Tietjens music: “Poppy Song,” “When We Get What’s A ‘Comin’ to Us,” “The Traveler and the Pie,” “ The Scarecrow,” “The Guardian of the Gate,” “Love is Love,” “Just a Simple Girl from the Prairie,” and “When You Love, Love, Love.” Nathaniel D. Mann provides music for at least two other titles that offer Baum lyrics, “It Happens Everyday” and “The Different Ways of Making Love.” Two songs used in the plan originally had been written for the unproduced Baum play The Octopus (1901).
Fred Stone’s memories of opening night are recorded in his biography, Rolling Stone (1945):
“. . . they carried me on the stage too soon, and I hung motionless, my weight balanced on the side of one ankle, for eighteen minutes. . . I was hung on a stile by two nails, one in one sleeve of my costume and one in the elbow, with my whole body thrown off balance. . . . First one arm, then a foot, went to sleep. It seemed to me that I simply had to move, but I held on like grim death, with the sweat pouring down my face and into my eyes. The part of the little Kansas girl, Dorothy, was played by Anna Laughlin, who had a good number just before she was to release me, and that night there was one encore after another. When she finally came for me, I was so numb I just hung on to her for support. Fortunately the audience, taken by surprise at having me come to life, burst into prolonged applause, which gave me a chance to limber up before I had to dance.”[48]
June 16, 1932:
7
407
Roosevelt, Eleanor, 1884-1962 (T.L.S.), June 16, 1932; June 27, 1934
[49]
June 16, 1940: The head of the French government resigns and is replaced by Maréchal Pétain, a World War I hero.[50]
June 16, 1942
A report on public attitudes toward the yellow star, prepared by Rothke, Dannecker’s new assistant, and sent to Berlin by Knochen, states: “Large sectors of the population display little or no understanding of the distinctive [Jewish] insignia. ‘Poor Jews,’ is heard constantly, especially abouyt Jewish children. They persist in seeing the Jewish question as a religious question rather than a crucial problem…Some French teachers have told their non-Jewish students to have sympathy for their Jewish classmates.”[51]
June 16, 1943: Heinz Gottlieb, Born March 9, 1905 in Leipzig. Wedding, Iranian Str 2; 91st. Resident Berlin. Deportation: from Berlin, June 16, 1943 Theresienstadt. Death:
October 3.1943, Theresienstadt.[52]
June 16, 1961 The FBI receives a report that a U.S. Senator from Louisiana might have
sought to intervene on the behalf of Carlos Marcello. This Senator has reportedly received
“financial aid from Marcello” in the past and “is sponsoring a Louisiana official for a key INS position
from which assistance might be rendered.” [53]
June 16, 1962: Spouse: Larry Joe ENGLAND. Charlotte Kay MARUGG and Larry Joe ENGLAND were married on 16 June 16, 1962 in Monticello, Jones County, Iowa, USA.[54]
June 16, 1963 Harbor police Patrolman Girod Ray is between the Toulouse and
Domaine Street wharves in New Orleans when an “enlisted man” approaches and says that “the
Officer of the Deck of the USS Wasp desires Patrolman Ray seek out an individual who is passing
out leaflets regarding Cuba and to request this individual to stop passing out these leaflets. Ray
goes immediately to the Domaine Street wharf, where he finds a man handing out white and
yellow-colored leaflets. According to Ray, the man is a white male in his late twenties who is 5
feet 9 inches tall, weighs 150 pounds, and has a slender build. This description is consistent with
the appearance of LHO. Patrolman Ray will eventually identify the man as LHO. Copies of the
handbills are collected by the 112th Intelligence Corps Group in New Orleans. NOTE: In July,
1964, the ONI will receive a request from the FBI asking if ONI records can substantiate this story about
LHO’s activities during June 1963 in New Orleans. O&CIA[55]
June 16 – 19, 1963: Valentina Tereshkova, the world's first woman in space completes
orbital flight onboard Vostok-6 spacecraft. [56]
June 16, 2007:
+on+the+occasion+of+the+Queen's+Official+Birthday,+June+16,+2007..jpg)
http://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.23wmf10/skins/common/images/magnify-clip.png
The Princess Royal on the balcony of Buckingham Palace (in uniform, far right) on the occasion of the Queen's Official Birthday, June 16, 2007.
June 16, 2010
Jeff,
List attached.
I have included William H. Goodlove with a (?) because I'm still holding open the possibility that his father Conrad was the same as the Conrad of Hardy County. Jim Funkhouser
FRANZ GOTTLOB’S GRANDSONS WHO SERVED IN CIVIL WAR
UNION
Jonathan Cheshire s/o Sarah Godlove and Samuel Chesher
private, Company G, 151 Regt, Ohio Vol. Infantry
Benjamin J. Godlove s/o Adam Godlove
private in Co. E, 10th Iowa Infantry,
transferred to 4 Veteran Res. Corps. (Invalid Corps)
Samuel Godlove s/o Adam Godlove
private Co. D, 24th Iowa Volunteer Infantry
buried in the National Cemetery in Winchester
Henry Godlove s/o Joseph Godlove
Private., Co. K, 11 Kansas Cavalry
Perry Godlove s/o Joseph Godlove
Private, Company B, 142 Indiana Volunteer Infantry,
John Franklin Younkin s/o Catherine Godlove and Samuel Youkin
Corporal, Co. D, 24th Regt, Iowa Vol, Infantry
?
William Harrison Goodlove s/o Conrad
Co. H., 24th Iowa Volunteer Infantry. Rank in: Private; Rank out: Corporal
CONFEDERATE
Anthony Baker s/o Sevilla Godlove and Isaac Baker
Private, Co. H, 3rd Regt, 7th Brigade, 136th Va. Militia
Private, Co. G, 23rd Regt., Va. Cavalry
Private, Co. B, O’ Ferrall’s Battalion, Va. Cavalry (transferred to O’Farrell’s, but captured while still with 23rd Va.; did not serve in O’Farrell’s)
Nicholas Baker s/o Sevilla Godlove and Isaac Baker
Private, Co. E, 11th Regiment, Va. Cavalry
Alfred A. Brill s/o Mary Ann Godlove and Henry Brill
Captain, Co. D, 114th Virginia militia;
Private, Co. F, 33rd Regt Va. Infantry
Private, Co. K, 18 Virginia Cavalry
Lemuel E. Brill s/o Mary Ann Godlove and Henry Brill
3rd Sgt., Co D, 114th Regt. Va. Militia
Privateto 3rd Corporal Co F 33rd Regt, Va. Infantry ;
Private, Co. D., 18th Regt. Va. 18th Regt, Va. Cavalry;
Hampton Jefferson Brill s/o Mary Ann Godlove and Henry Brill
Private, Co D, 114th Regt. Va. Militia
Private, Co F, 33rd Va. Infantry
Private, Co. D, 18th Virginia Cavalry
1
Abraham Didawick s/o Elizabeth Godlove and Henry Didawick
private, Co. I, 18th Virginia Cavalry
Benjamin F. Didawick s/o Elizabeth Godlove and Henry Didawick
Private, Co. I, 18th Virginia Cavalry
John H. Didawick s/o Elizabeth Godlove and Henry Didawick
no official record; Roger U. Delauter, 18th Virginia Cavalry, Lynchburg, Va.: H. E. Howard, Inc., 1986 says John is listed on a postwar roster
David Godlove s/o Francis Godlove
2nd corporal, Co. A, 14th Regt Va. Militia
private, Co. D, 1st Regt Va. Partisan Rangers
private, Co. I, 18th Va Cavalry
Isaac Godlove s/o Francis Godlove
private, Co. A, 14th Regt Va. Militia,
private, Co. I, 18th Va Cavalry
Joseph Godlove s/o Francis Godlove
1st lieutenant, Co. A, 14th Regt Va. Militia
2nd sergeant, Co. D, 1st Regt Va. Partisan Rangers
2nd sergeant, Co I., 18th Virginia Cavalry[57]
18th Virginia Cavalry: synopsis of activity, based on Roger U. Delauter, 18th Virginia Cavalry (Lynchburg, Va.: H. E. Howard, Inc., 1985.
The 18th Virginia Cavalry was organized by General John D. Imboden in the fall of 1862 and spring 1863. Many of its members—the Godloves included—had served in units formed the 1st Partisan Rangers (which became the 62nd Mounted Infantry).
In April-May 1863 the 18th Cav skirmished with Federal forces in the western counties of Virginia. In June-July General Lee sent Imboden on raids in against Federal positions in -- Co., Va., Cumberland, Md., Berkeley Springs, Va., and Fulton and Franklin Counties, Pa., to protect Lee’s right flank as the main army moved into Pa. in the campaign that culminated at Gettysburg, July 1-4. During the Battle of Gettysburg Imboden’s Brigade formed Lee’s rear guard and defended the wagon trains of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia as it retreated from Gettysburg.
The 18th Cav was part of the Confederate force that guarded the Shenandoah Valley in 1863 and 1864. It participated in the Valley Campaign of 1864, including the Battle of New Market (May 15), the Second Battle of Kernstown (July 24), the Third Battle of Winchester (September 19), the Battle of Cedar Creek (October 19) and remained in the Valley, usually the Page Valley in the east of the larger Shenandoah Valley, through the rest of the year, participating in several less-consequential engagements, and losing about forty percent of its members, killed, wounded, captured.
That winter Gen. Early dispersed the men of the 18th Cav to their home counties and in January-February 1865 the 18th did not act as a unified force. It was called together again when Sheridan moved up the Valley, but was unable to assemble before Early’s defeat at Waynesboro (March 2, 1865). The 18th performed scouting and picket duty in the central Valley in March. After Lee’s surrender in April 1865, members of the 18th, individually and in small groups, surrendered at Winchester and Moorefield and received their paroles.[58]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.tudor-history.com/about-tudors/tudor-timeline/
[2] http://archive.org/stream/lettersofmarystu00mary/lettersofmarystu00mary_djvu.txt
[3] http://archive.org/stream/lettersofmarystu00mary/lettersofmarystu00mary_djvu.txt
[4] http://www.tudor-history.com/about-tudors/tudor-timeline/
[5] http://www.tudor-history.com/about-tudors/tudor-timeline/
[6] http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history
[7] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_cromwell
[9] wikipedia
[10] wikipedia
[11] wikipedia
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Maria
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_cromwell
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_cromwell
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_cromwell
[16] http://archive.org/stream/lettersofmarystu00mary/lettersofmarystu00mary_djvu.txt
[17] http://www.tudor-history.com/about-tudors/tudor-timeline/
[18] http://www.tudor-history.com/about-tudors/tudor-timeline/
[19] Torrence and Allied Families, Robert M. Torrence pg 312
[20] http://www.twoop.com/medicine/archives/2005/10/bubonic_plague.html
[21] wikipedia
[22] wikipedia
[23] Proposed Descendants of William Smythe
[24] http://penningtons.tripod.com/jeptha.htm
[25] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versailles
[26] Proposed Descendants of William Smythe
[27] Betty Zane, Zane Grey.
[28] wikipedia
[29] http://www.nps.gov/archive/fone/1754.htm
[30] ~Six Cherokee Indians came to Fort Cumberland and told Captain Dagworthy hat they saw the French near Fort Duquesne coming in that direction with wagons md great guns. An attack was apprehended, the country alarmed, the militia called ut, and Colonel Stanwix’s regulars Were put in motion; but it proved to be a false report, “Colonel Washington told me,” Armstrong wrote to Governor Denny, “if he the enemy] came without erecting something by the way, that it was not in his power to be early enough to assist the garrison, nor would all his men be more than breakfast to the French and their Indians,”—Ford, (See Pennsylvania Archives, ‘ol. ~, p. 189) The council’s proceedings are printed in Hamilton’s Letters to Washington, vol. 2, p. 94. The purport of the above letter, with copies of those from agwor~~,. and Livingston, were sent to Colonel Stanwix and to Governor Sharpe. )agwort~y5 and Livingston’s letters, dated June 54, 1757, are printed in the Mary-and Archz ore
[31] Captain Dagworthy’s letter, dated June 54, 1757, is in the Washington Papers.
[32] The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799. John C. Fitzpatrick, Editor.--vol. 02
[33] Washington’s Journal, From River Clyde to Tymochtee and Col. William Crawford, by Grace U. Emahiser, 1969, page 108.
[34] The chronology of Xenia and Greene County Ohio. http://fussichen.com/oftheday/otdx.htm
[35]See Williamson to Irvine, June 13, 1782, Appendix M.
[36][36]
[37]John Canon. He resided at Canonsburg, Washington county, Pennsylvania, a town laid out by him on the 15th of April, 1788. Before that date, it was known simply as “Canon’s.”
[38]This tract Washington sold to Archibald McClean; and, instead of 587 acres, it was found, by accurate survey, to contain over one thousand.
[39] The Washington-Crawford Letters, C. W. Butterfield, 1877
[40] (National Archives Record Group No. 49, v. 14, p. 153) Chronology of Benjamin Harrison compiled by Isobel Stebbins Giuvezan. Afton, Missouri, 1973 http://www.shawhan.com/benharrison.html
[41] The Papers of Andrew Jackson, Volume V, 1821-1824
[42] http://thisdayinjewishhistory.blogspot.com/
[43] http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&p=how+is+george+washington+related+to+all+50+presidents
[44] http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/house.htm
[45] State Capital Memorial, Austin, TX, February 11, 2012
[46] Annotated by Jeffery Lee Goodlove
[47] Winton Goodlove papers.
[48] http://ozclub.org/oz-timeline/1900-1910-the-baum-oz-years/
[49]
Series 2: Incoming Correspondence, 1867-1953
The majority of this series is personal correspondence sent to Harrison, although there are also a significant number of items that were sent to Harrison in his official capacity as Mayor of Chicago or Collector of Internal Revenue. Several letters have handwritten annotations by Harrison explaining the letter's context or giving his thoughts on the sender or the letter's subject.
Much of Harrison's official incoming correspondence involves patronage job appointments. The rest of Harrison's incoming correspondence covers a wide range of topics, including: (a) his three books (Stormy Years, Growing Up With Chicago, and With the American Red Cross in France, 1918-1919); (b) the political activities of the Democratic Party at both the local and national level, including four letters from Tammany Hall boss Richard Croker; (c) early Chicago history; (d) hunting and fishing trips; (e) efforts to locate the whereabouts of various individuals with whom Harrison was acquainted in the past; and (f) responses from well-known people of Harrison's day from whom he requested autographs as a young man.
Among the correspondence in this series are two interesting letters from then Senator Harry Truman in 1936 in which Truman tells Harrison what he thinks of the French and expresses his displeasure at France's failure to repay the United States for debts incurred during World War I in connection with the purchase of war supplies. There is also a letter from Harrison's brother, William Preston Harrison, giving his eyewitness account of the assassination of Harrison's father in 1893, and a letter from Lawton Parker inviting Harrison to attend a meeting to discuss the formation the Arts Club of Chicago. Finally, this series includes letters relating to Harrison's service with the American Red Cross in France at the end of World War I, and his gifts to the Art Institute of Chicago.
There is a fair amount of correspondence (i.e., over five letters) from the following individuals or entities: American Red Cross; Art Institute of Chicago; Bobbs-Merrill Company; William Jennings Bryan; Charles Collins; Charles G. Dawes; Charles S. Deneen; Edward F. Dunne; E. K. Eckert; James Farley; Alexander Hugh Ferguson; Charles Fitzmorris; Sophonisba Preston Harrison; William Preston Harrison; Henry Horner; Cordell Hull; Harold L. Ickes; James Hamilton Lewis; Frank O. Lowden; Edgar Lee Masters; William Gibbs McAdoo; John T. McCutcheon; F. Millet; Henry Morgenthau Jr.; Battling Nelson; Lawton Parker; Henry T. Rainey; Frederick Rex; Franklin Delano Roosevelt; Julius Rosenwald; A. J. Sabath; Adlai E. Stevenson; William Hale Thompson; Henry Emerson Tuttle; and Walter Ufer.
Letters to Harrison specifically about his family's genealogy and history are arranged separately in Series 11 (Harrison Family History). Letters to Harrison about the Chicago Commission for the Encouragement of Local Art are arranged separately in Series 12 (Chicago Commission for the Encouragement of Local Art).
This series is arranged alphabetically by the sender's name. Multiple items within a folder are then arranged chronologically.
[50] (Based on Ian Ousby, Occupation: The Ordeal of France, 1940-1944 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998)
[51] French Children of the Holocaust, A Memorial, by Serge Klarsfeld, page 33.
[52] [1] memorial book, victims of the persecution of the Jews under the Nazi dictatorship in Germany 1933-1945. Second and much expanded edition, volume II, GK, edit and herausgegben the Federal Archives, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035.
(2) The judishchen victims of National Socialism
"Their names like never be forgotten!"Listen
“Ihre Namen mogen nie vergessen werden!”
[53] http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono1.pdf
[54] http://www.gase.nl/InternettreeUSA/b578.htm
[55] http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono1.pdf
[56] http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono1.pdf
[57] Jim Funkhouser email, June 15, 2010
[58] Jim Funkhouser email, June 16, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment