This Day in Goodlove History, December 10, 2014

11,945 names…11,945 stories…11,945 memories…
This Day in Goodlove History, December 10, 2014

Like us on Facebook!
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, Theodore 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! https://www.familytreedna.com/public/goodlove/

• • 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

December 10, 1541: Culpeper and Dereham were executed at Tyburn on December 10, 1541, Culpeper being beheaded and Dereham being hanged, drawn, and quartered. According to custom, their heads were placed on top of London Bridge. Many of Catherine's relatives were also detained in the Tower with the exception of her uncle, the Duke of Norfolk, who had sufficiently distanced himself from the scandal by writing a letter on December 14, to the King, excusing himself and laying all the blame on his niece and stepmother.[12] All of the Howard prisoners were tried, found guilty of concealing treason, and sentenced to life imprisonment and forfeiture of goods. In time, however, they were released with their goods restored. [1]

December 10, 1541: Thomas Culpeper

Sir Thomas Culpeper (c. 1514 – December 10, 1541) was a courtier of Henry VIII and the lover of Henry's fifth queen, Catherine Howard.

Early life

He was born to Alexander Culpeper of Bedgebury, to the south of Maidstone in Kent, and his second wife, Constance Harper. He was the middle child and his older brother, also named Thomas, was a client of Thomas Cromwell.[1] The brothers were known for collecting valuable items for the royal family during their time at court.[2] He was distantly related to the Howard clan, who were immensely powerful at the time, and was a distant cousin[3] of Joyce Culpeper, Catherine Howard's mother. They were particularly influential after the fall of Cardinal Wolsey in 1529, and for a brief time under the reign of Anne Boleyn, who was one of their cousins.

Royal service

Having bought the Higham Park estate at Bridge near Canterbury in 1534,[4] by 1535 Culpeper was acting as courtier for the Viscount Lisle and his wife, Honor, during which time he collected a number of items for them. In 1538, Honor presented Culpeper with a hawk and during that same year, Culpeper worked with Richard Cromwell to gain a hawk for King Henry VIII.[1]

Culpeper was described as "a beautiful youth" and he was a great favourite of Henry. It was because of this favouritism that Culpeper had major influence with the King and was often bribed to use his influence on others’ behalf.[5] In 1539, a Thomas Culpeper was accused of raping a park-keeper’s wife and then murdering a villager. However there is a possibility that the rapist was Culpeper's elder brother, also called Thomas.[6] Whoever was the guilty party, through influence on the King, a pardon was given.[6] Culpeper was given the honour of being keeper of the armoury and Henry eventually made Culpeper gentleman to the King's Privy Chamber, giving him intimate access to the King, as the role involved dressing and undressing Henry and often sleeping in his bedchamber. He was part of the group of privileged courtiers who greeted Henry's German bride Anne of Cleves when she arrived in England for her marriage.

From 1537-1541, Culpeper was given several gifts, including keeper of the manor at Penshurst Palace and property in Kent, Essex, Gloucestershire, and Wiltshire.

Culpeper was executed along with Dereham at Tyburn on December 10, 1541,[7] and their heads were put on display on London Bridge. Culpeper was buried at St Sepulchre-without-Newgate church in London. [2]



December 10, 1585: The Earl of Leicester lands at Flushing, where he is received with the highest honours.



The same day, the Scottish parliament, assembled at Linlithgow, empowers the king to conclude the treaty with the Queen of England. [3]



December 10, 1607:, CAPT John Smith was captured. [4]

December 10, 1708: John Vance was born on 12-Sep-1753 in Bucks, Pa. The Son of Samuel Vance Jr. born December 10, 1708, and Agnes "Penquite" Vance May 16, 1730.[5]

December 10, 1728: Samuel Vance Jr. was born on 10-Dec-1728 in New Castle, Pa. The s/o Samuel Vance b. 1691, and Sarah "Blackburn" Vance b. 1709. He later married Agnes Penquite b. May 16, 1730.[6]

December 10, 1752: Trent reports to the Lieutenant-governor of Virginia

Beginning on page 73, Goodman‘s book provides a copy of a December 10, 1752 letter from

Lieutenant-Governor Robert Dinwiddie to the Board of Trade that mentions the destruction of

Pickawillany. Part of this letter states:

Since my last letter to your Lordships, Mr. William Trent, who was sent from the Ohio

(by the commissioners from this) to the Twightwees, with part of His Majesty‘s present

for that nation, returned some time since, and enclosed I send your Lordships a copy of

his journal there and back to this government, by which you‘ll please observe the risk he

run, and the miserable condition he found these poor people in; their town taken, and

many of their people killed by the French and Indians in amity with them, and many of

the English traders ruined, being robbed of their goods, some killed and others carried

away prisoners; and all this, as I am informed, is under the conduct of the French from

Canada, or New Orleans, on the Mississippi, the Indians having declared to our traders

that the French promised to give them one hundred crowns for every white scalp they

bring them; there are no other white people trading there but the English subjects and

the French, so it is obvious they would encourage the Indians to murder our traders in

cool blood. (Scalping is cutting the skin round the head, and by the hair drawing it off

quite to the eyes.) The French traders from Canada have met our traders in the woods

and robbed them of all their skins and goods; if they have applied to me for protection,

and power to make reprisals, which I by no means would grant, as we are at peace with

the French, but I pray your Lordships‘ directions how to behave on such applications for

the future, as I think the British subjects are under great oppression and severities from

the French traders in their villainous robberies. And till the line is run between

Pennsylvania and this, His Majesty‘s Dominion, so as to ascertain our limits, I can not

appoint magistrates to keep the traders in good order, as the Pennsylvanians dispute the

right of this government to the river Ohio. Since the arrival of Mr. Trent, as above, the Twightwees have sent one Thomas Burney, express, who brought me a belt of wampum, a

scalp of one of the Indians that are at war with them and in the interest of the French,

with a calmute pipe (being an emblem of peace with those they send it to), and two

letters, copy thereof I here enclose to your Lordships; they are of an odd style, but are

copied literally as I received them.

Certainly the Ohio Company activities and Trent‘s fort building activities at the Forks of the

Ohio (Chapter 6) helped to precipitate the French and Indian War. From the various passages

quoted above, one can see that English trade via the Twightwee Indian road also helped to

precipitate the war42. During the course of the war, the Twightwee Indians once again allied

themselves with the French, and sometimes ventured back to the Wills Creek area on raids.43[7][8]



1752

The head of this line in this country was John Dodson, born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England in 1752.[9]



(1753–1801) Lionel Smythe, 5th Viscount Strangford..[10]



1753: Samuel Vance Jr. married Agnes Penquite (My 1st Cousin 6 Times Removed, By Marriage) in 1753. Samuel vance Jr. (My 1st Cousin 6 Times Removed) was born 10-Dec-1728, the s/o Samuel Vance (My 6th Great Uncle) b. 1691, and Sarah "Blackburn" Vance (My 6th Great Aunt) b. 1709. Agnes Penquite (My 1st Cousin 6 Times Removed, By Marriage) was born 16-May-1730.

1753: Jane "Martin" Vance died in 1753. She was the Wife of Alexander Vance Sr. born 1725, the Son of John Vance, born 1699, and Elizabeth "LNU" Vance.[11]

1753: Andrew HARRISON Jr

ABT 1666 - 1753

Repository ID Number: I1020



◾RESIDENCE: Essex & Orange Cos. VA
◾BIRTH: ABT 1666, Essex Co., VA [S24]
◾DEATH: 1753 [S166]
◾RESOURCES: See: [S9] [S24] [S168] [S438] [S460]

Father: Andrew HARRISON
Mother: Elinor LONG ELLIOTT



Family 1 : Elizabeth BATTAILE

§ MARRIAGE: 1710, Essex Co., VA, St. Mary's Parish [S24]

1. + Battaile HARRISON

2. + Charles HARRISON

3. + Lawrence HARRISON

4. John HARRISON

5. Elizabeth HARRISON

6. Margaret HARRISON

Notes

Andrew Harrison and his son Andrew with wife Elizabeth were ancestors of the Harrison lines of Loudon Co. and Monroe Co. TN.

He was born at least by 1707. (Records show he was of age by 1728 and could have been of age earlier.

"Andrew Harrison (son of Andrew Harrison who died in 1718) on August 10, 1708, gave bond in Essex County Court as the guardian of Elizabeth Battaile, and on January 2, 1710, Andrew Harrison and Elizabeth, his wife, deeded land which was bequeathed by the said Elizabeth's father, John Battaile. By which we know that the wife of Andrew Harrison, Jr. was Elizabeth Battaile, daughter of Capt. John Battaile, of Essex County, Virginia, who was Captain of Rangers against the Indians in 1692 and in the same year a member of the House of Burgesses from Essex County..."

Notes provided by Carrie Hoffert:

(DEEDS SPOTSVYLVANIA - Excerpts) Deed Book A 1722-1729, page 94; 'April 6, 1725, Harry Beverly of Spts Co. to Andrew Harrison of Essex Co. 4600 LBS of tobacco, 600a. in SPTS Co. part of a Pat. granted sd. Beverly. Witnesses, Moseley Battaley, Richard Bayley. Rec June 1, 1725'

(DEEDS SPOTSVYLVANIA - Excerpts) Deed Book A 1722-172 9, page 104; 'December 31, 1728. Andrew Harrison of Spts Co. to Richard Fitz William, Esqr., in trust for himself the Honbl. Wm Gooch, His Maajesties Lieut. Governor, Capt. Vincent Pearse, Dr. George Nicolas, and Charlse Chiswell. L70 curr. , 600a in Spts. Co., the sd land purchased by the sd Harrison of Harry Beverly, the sd land having been granted by pat. to the sd. Beverly. Witnesses: William Wombwell Cliff, Tho Jarman, Augustine Graham. Rec. February 4, 1728-9. Elizabeth, wife of Andrew Harrison, acknowledged her dower in sd. land, etc.' [S9] [S461] [S155] [S1416]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


_Anthony HARRISON ___+

| (1600 - 1660)

_Richard HARRISON ___|

| (1628 - ....) |

| |_____________________

|

_Andrew HARRISON _____|

| (1648 - 1718) m 1684 |

| | _____________________

| | |

| |_____________________|

| |

| |_____________________

|

|

|--Andrew HARRISON Jr

| (1666 - 1753)

| _____________________

| |

| _____________________|

| | |

| | |_____________________

| |

|_Elinor LONG ELLIOTT _|

m 1684 |

| _____________________

| |

|_____________________|

|

|_____________________




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sources

[S24]

[S166]

[S9]

[S24]

[S168]

[S438]

[S460]

[S9]

[S461]

[S155]

[S1416]

[S24]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


INDEX

Back to the Harrison Repository Home Page




EMAIL

© 1995-2001. Becky Bonner and Josephine Lindsay Bass. All rights reserved.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


HTML created by GED2HTML v3.6-WIN95 (Jan 18 2000) on 10/20/01 12:48:53 PM Central Standard Time. [12]

1753

Stewart's Crossing was on the Youghiogheny River below present-day Connellsville, Pa. The site was named for William Stewart, who settled there in 1753. [13]

To Pennsylvania: 1753

Most likely, during the summer of 1753 the family moved to Lancaster Co., PA— a heavily German-populated area. [14]



1753: By 1753, branches of a second road, financed by the Ohio Company, went to the present-day areas of Brownsville[15] and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At least part of the Ohio Company road was laid out and marked by the Indian Nemacolin.[16]



As to the controversy with Connecticut: Beginning in 1753, a

company called the Susquehanna Company formed of associators

in Connecticut, conceiving that that colony had jurisdiction over

certain lands within the limits of Pennsylvania, jumped across

both New York and New Jersey, sat down along the North branch

of the River Susquehanna, and laid out and named seventeen

towns (or what we would call townships), in the most beautiful

valleys along that river. These towns were made to contain about

twenty-five square miles of territory each, and their boundaries

were not coterminous with the boundaries of any of the municipal

divisions of Pennsylvania, but, settlers crowding into them under

titles granted by the Susquehanna Company, the General Assembly

of Connecticut created these townships into a new county called

Westmoreland, and attached it to the jurisdiction of Litchfield

County, Connecticut. This Connecticut County, wholly inside of

1753: Pennsylvania and separated from -the parent colony by New York and New Jersey, embraced lands lying in what is now Luzerne, Susquehanna, Wyoming and Bradford counties, Pennsylvania, a

large portion of the northeastern part of our State. Then followed between the Pennsylvania settlers and the -Connecticut claimants actual war and bloodshed, called the Pennamite and Yankee War,

suspended only by the revolution of the American Colonies from the mother country in 1776.[17]

1753; Jews expelled from Kovad (Lithuania).[18]

1753: — The French begin to build a chain of forts to enforce

their boundaries.[19]




Gate to Fort de Chartres

1753

In Illinois, Fort de Chartres began to be rebuilt in stone. It was finished three years later at a cost of 5 million livres.[20]




A deed of 1753 concerning the purchase of a Negro woman identifies Daniel McKinnon as a schoolmaster in Anne Arundel County. [21]



Daniel McKinnon becomes the headmaster of Queen Anne Parish School in 1753. [22]

Educational facilities in earlier days were very meagre, hence, the Rev. Daniel MfcKinnon had to rely upon his own ingenuity to supply missing needs. Mrs George Rogers, of Morgantown, West Virgina, has a valued relic, much faded and worn, a text book, prepared by the Rev. Daniel McKinnon, containing arithmetic tables, grammar rules, hymns, prayers, and quotations, in his own writing, for use in teaching his children. A page from this book is reproduced here.[23]



1753–1755 – The time of the Cherokee-Muscogee War, which culminated in the Battle of Taliwa.[24]

December 10, 1777

Abstracts of Old Virginia Wills: John Vance, of Yohogania County in Virginia, dated Dec. 10, 1777, attested by William Crawford[25], Benjamin Wells, Samuel Hecks; proved Yohog. Co. March 23, 1778: Bneficiaries, wife Margaret, sons David, William (land on waters of Raccoon Creek joining Crohan's line) Moses; daughters Mary, Elizabeth.[26]

December 10, 1777

Another theory that has been suggested is that after the death of Margaret, Joseph Howard Sr. may have no longer needed to keep Eleanor's birth secret. However, Eleanor was never mentioned in his will written December 10, 1777 (after the death of his wife Margaret and shortly before Eleanor's marriage to John) or in the disposition of his estate. Therefore it appears unlikely that this theory has merit.

Also, it could be argued that if she learned of the content of Joseph Howard Sr.'s December 1777 will and that she was not included, this could have been her motivation for declaring it on the marriage license.

In light of the evidence found which applies to both Eleanor McKinnon and Eleanor Howard and the fact that no evidence found contradict the assumption that Eleanor McKinnon are the same, it is a reasonable conclusion that they are in fact the same person.



Unfortunately, the above still leaves many questions open such as when and by whom were they married, what happened between 1778 and when they arrived in Hamilton County, Ohio in 1795, why William had the middle name Beal, etc. But, a s anyone experienced in research knows, all questions are rarely answered.[27]

December 10, 1778

John Jay is appointed President of the Continental Congress.[28]

December 10, 1777: Eleanor was never mentioned in his will written December 10, 1777 (after the death of his wife Margaret and shortly before Eleanor's marriage to John) or in the disposition of his estate. Therefore it appears unlikely that this theory has merit.

Also, it could be argued that if she learned of the content of Joseph Howard Sr. 's December 1777 will
and that she was not included, this could have been her motivation for declaring it on the marriage
license.
7

In light of the evidence found which applies to both Eleanor McKinnon and Eleanor Howard and the
fact that no evidence found contradict the assumption that Eleanor McKinnon are the same, it is a
reasonable conclusion that they are in fact the same person.

Unfortunately, the above still leaves many questions open such as when and by whom were they
married, what happened between 1778 and when they arrived in Hamilton County, Ohio in 1795, why
William had the middle name Beal, etc. But, as anyone experienced in research knows, all questions
are rarely answered.

Next lets look at which Howard may have been the father of Eleanor. The 1776 Maryland census (the
first such listing) list the following Howards in Anne Arundel County.

Denune Howard (Page 2) who has one white male

Joseph Howard Jr. (Page 2) who has one white male, one white female, and two children.

Joseph Howard Sr. (Page 9) who has two white males, two white females and one child.

Vashel (incorrectly read as Nashet by some transcribers) Howard (Page 4) who has one white male,
one white female and seven children.



December 10, 1793: Acts of the Second General Assembly of Kentucky in 1793. An act to establish a town, on the lands of Robert Harrison, in the county of Bourbon, was approved December 10, 1793. Said town to be established by the name of Cynthiana and the property thereof vested in Benjamin Harrison (a representative in the legislature from Bourbon County) Morgan Van Matrte, Jeramiah Robinson, John Wall, Sr and Henry Coleman, trusatees; a majority of them directed to sell lots in the 100 acre tract, Robert Harrison to issue deeds in fee.

The Town was laid out in half acre lots, the purchaser was required, within four years of purchase, to have built a house no smaller than 16 X 18 feet, house to have a masonry chimney. If these conditions were not met, the trustees were empowered to resell the lot for the best price and turn the money over to the town.[29]

By an act of the same assembly, Harrison County was formed from parents of Bourbon and Scott Counties and named for, in honor of, Benjamin Harrison, chairman of the board of trustees. Cyntiana was made the County Seat and named in honor of Cynthia and Anna, daughters of Robert Harrison, who gave the County Court Square. The square originally extended from the first cross over (later named Pike Street), To the second cross over (later named Pleasant Street.[30]



1794 Hannah returns to Pennsylvania and lives with Sally Springer and receives pension from Pennsylvania (22 years).[31]





This is a fragment of the 1794 Dennis Griffith map, which was printed in 1795. Tomlinson’s Mill was located near the location of present-day Corriganville, as shown by a waterwheel icon.[32]

1793 - December 10 - By act of the General Assembly, the town of Cynthiana was established on the east side of the South Fork of Licking opposite the mouth of Gray's Run, on land of Robert Harrison in Bourbon County. Trustees: Benjamin Harrison, Morgan Van Matre, Jeremiah Robinson, John Wall, Sr., Henry Coleman. [33]

December 10, 1810:





Marie von Clausewitz (neé, Countess von Brühl)

On December 10, 1810 he married the socially prominent Countess Marie von Brühl and socialized with Berlin's literary and intellectual elite. She was a member of the noble German von Brühl family originating in Thuringia. They first met in 1803.

Opposed to Prussia's enforced alliance with Napoleon I, he left the Prussian army and served in the Russian army from 1812 to 1813 during the Russian Campaign, including the Battle of Borodino. Like many Prussian officers serving in Russia, he joined the Russian-German Legion in 1813. In the service of the Russian Empire, Clausewitz helped negotiate the Convention of Tauroggen (1812), which prepared the way for the coalition of Prussia, Russia, and the United Kingdom that ultimately defeated Napoleon and his allies.

In 1815, the Russo-German Legion was integrated into the Prussian Army and Clausewitz re-entered Prussian service. He was soon appointed chief of staff of Johann von Thielmann's III Corps. In that capacity, he served at the Battle of Ligny and the Battle of Wavre during the Waterloo Campaign in 1815. The Prussians were defeated at Ligny (south of Mont-Saint-Jean and the village of Waterloo) by an army led personally by Napoleon, but Napoleon's failure to destroy the Prussian forces led to his defeat a few days later at the Battle of Waterloo, when the Prussian forces unexpectedly arrived on his right flank late in the afternoon to support the Anglo-Dutch forces pressing his front.

Clausewitz was promoted to Major-General in 1818 and appointed director of the Kriegsakademie, where he served until 1830. In that year the outbreak of several revolutions around Europe and a crisis in Poland appeared to presage another major European war. Clausewitz was appointed chief of staff of the only army Prussia was able to mobilize, which was sent to the Polish border. He died after commanding the Prussian army's efforts to construct a cordon sanitaire to contain the great cholera outbreak in 1831 (the first time cholera had appeared in Europe, causing a continent-wide panic).

His widow published his magnum opus on the philosophy of war in 1832, on which he had started working in 1816, but had not completed.[5] She wrote the preface for On War and by 1834 had published several of his books. She died two years later.

Theory of war

Clausewitz was a professional soldier who was involved in numerous military campaigns, but he is famous primarily as a military theorist interested in the examination of war. He wrote a careful, systematic, philosophical examination of war in all its aspects. The result was his principal work, On War, the West's premier work on the philosophy of war. It was only partially completed by the time of his death, but just how close to completion it was is a matter of considerable scholarly dispute. It clearly contains material written at different stages in Clausewitz's intellectual evolution, producing some significant contradictions between different sections, and the sequence and precise character of that evolution is a source of much debate. Clausewitz constantly sought to revise the text, particularly between 1827 and his departure on his last field assignment, to include more material on "people's war" and forms of war other than between states, but little of this material was included in the book.[5] Soldiers before this time had written treatises on various military subjects, but none had undertaken a great philosophical examination of war on the scale of those written by Clausewitz and Leo Tolstoy, both of which were inspired by the events of the Napoleonic Era.

Clausewitz's work is still studied today, demonstrating its continued relevance. More than ten major English-language books focused specifically on his work were published between 2005 and 2010. Lynn Montross, writing on that topic in War Through the Ages (1960), said; "This outcome... may be explained by the fact that Jomini produced a system of war, Clausewitz a philosophy. The one has been outdated by new weapons, the other still influences the strategy behind those weapons."[page needed] Although Jomini also wrote extensively on war, he did not attempt to define war. Clausewitz did, providing a number of definitions. The first is his dialectical thesis: "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will." The second, often treated as Clausewitz's 'bottom line,' is in fact merely his dialectical antithesis: "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means." The synthesis of his dialectical examination of the nature of war is his famous "trinity," saying that war is "a fascinating trinity—composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; the play of chance and probability, within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and its element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to pure reason."[6]

The degree to which Clausewitz managed to revise his manuscript to reflect that synthesis is the subject of much debate. His final reference to war and Politik, however, goes beyond his widely quoted antithesis: "War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means. We deliberately use the phrase "with the addition of other means" because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different. In essentials that intercourse continues, irrespective of the means it employs. The main lines along which military events progress, and to which they are restricted, are political lines that continue throughout the war into the subsequent peace."

Clausewitz introduced systematic philosophical contemplation into Western military thinking, with powerful implications not only for historical and analytical writing but also for practical policy, military instruction, and operational planning. He relied on his own experiences, contemporary writings about Napoleon, and on historical sources. His historiographical approach is evident in his first extended study, written when he was 25, of the Thirty Years War. He rejects the Enlightenment's view of the war as a chaotic muddle and instead explains its drawn-out operations by the economy and technology of the age, the social characteristics of the troops, and the commanders' politics and psychology. In On War, Clausewitz sees all wars as the sum of decisions, actions, and reactions in an uncertain and dangerous context, and also as a socio-political phenomenon. He has several definitions, the most famous one being that war is the continuation of politics by other means. He also stressed the complex nature of war, which encompasses both the socio-political and the operational and stresses the primacy of state policy.

The word "strategy" had only recently come into usage in modern Europe, and Clausewitz's definition is quite narrow: "the use of engagements for the object of war." Some modern readers find this narrow definition disappointing, but his focus was on the conduct of military operations in war, not on the full range of the conduct of politics in war. Nonetheless, Clausewitz conceived of war as a political, social, and military phenomenon which might — depending on circumstances — involve the entire population of a nation at war. In any case, Clausewitz saw military force as an instrument that states and other political actors use to pursue the ends of policy, in a dialectic between opposing wills, each with the aim of imposing his policies and will upon his enemy.[7]

Clausewitz's emphasis on the inherent superiority of the defense suggests that habitual aggressors are likely to end up as failures. The inherent superiority of the defense obviously does not mean that the defender will always win, however: there are other asymmetries to be considered. He was interested in cooperation between the regular army and militia or partisan forces, or citizen soldiers, as one possible — sometimes the only — method of defense. In the circumstances of the Wars of the French Revolution and with Napoleon, which were energized by a rising spirit of nationalism, he emphasized the need for states to involve their entire populations in the conduct of war. This point is especially important, as these wars demonstrated that such energies could be of decisive importance and for a time led to a democratization of the armed forces much as universal suffrage democratized politics.

While Clausewitz was intensely aware of the value of intelligence at all levels, he was also very skeptical of the accuracy of much military intelligence: "Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain.... In short, most intelligence is false." This circumstance is generally described as the fog of war. Such skeptical comments apply only to intelligence at the tactical and operational levels; at the strategic and political levels he constantly stressed the requirement for the best possible understanding of what today would be called strategic and political intelligence. His conclusions were influenced by his experiences in the Prussian Army, which was often in an intelligence fog due partly to the superior abilities of Napoleon's system but even more to the nature of war. Clausewitz acknowledges that friction creates enormous difficulties for the realization of any plan, and the fog of war hinders commanders from knowing what is happening. It is precisely in the context of this challenge that he develops the concept of military genius, whose capabilities are seen above all in the execution of operations.

Clausewitz's "fascinating trinity" (wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit) comprises (1) a blind impulse, located in the people and their passions, including hate and enmity, (2) free will, which belongs to the army and its leader and includes chance and probability, and (3) pure reason, which pertains to the government.[8] The theory of war needs to deal with all three factors.

[edit] Principal ideas





The young Clausewitz

Key ideas discussed in On War include:

· the dialectical approach to military analysis

· the methods of "critical analysis"

· the nature of the balance-of-power mechanism

· the relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war

· the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense

· the nature of "military genius" (involving matters of personality and character, beyond intellect)

· the "fascinating trinity" (wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit) of war

· philosophical distinctions between "absolute" or "ideal war," and "real war"

· in "real war," the distinctive poles of a) limited war and b) war to "render the enemy helpless"

· "war" belonging fundamentally to the social realm—rather than to the realms of art or science

· "strategy" belonging primarily to the realm of art

· "tactics" belonging primarily to the realm of science

· the importance of "moral forces" (more than simply "morale") as opposed to quantifiable physical elements

· the "military virtues" of professional armies (which do not necessarily trump the rather different virtues of other kinds of fighting forces)

· conversely, the very real effects of a superiority in numbers and "mass"

· the essential unpredictability of war

· the "fog" of war[9]

· "friction" - the disparity between the ideal performance of units, organisation or systems and their actual performance in real world scenarios (Book I, Chapter VII)

· strategic and operational "centers of gravity"[10]

· the "culminating point of the offensive"

· the "culminating point of victory"

Interpretation and misinterpretation

Clausewitz used a dialectical method to construct his argument, leading to frequent misinterpretation of his ideas. British military theorist B. H. Liddell Hart contends that the enthusiastic acceptance by the Prussian military establishment – especially Moltke the Elder – of what they believed to be Clausewitz's ideas, and the subsequent widespread adoption of the Prussian military system worldwide, had a deleterious effect on military theory and practice, due to their egregious misinterpretation of his ideas:

As so often happens, Clausewitz's disciples carried his teaching to an extreme which their master had not intended.... [Clausewitz's] theory of war was expounded in a way too abstract and involved for ordinary soldier-minds, essentially concrete, to follow the course of his argument – which often turned back from the direction in which it was apparently leading. Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.[11]

As described by Christopher Bassford, professor of strategy at the National War College of the United States:

One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation. For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means," ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point – made earlier in the analysis – that "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale." His synthesis, which resolves the deficiencies of these two bold statements, says that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. This synthesis lies in his "fascinating trinity" [wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit]: a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation.[2]

Another example of this confusion is the idea that Clausewitz was a proponent of total war as used in the Third Reich's propaganda in the 1940s. He did not use the term: rather, he discussed "absolute war" or "ideal war" as the purely logical result of the forces underlying a "pure," Platonic "ideal" of war. In what he called a "logical fantasy," war cannot be waged in a limited way: the rules of competition will force participants to use all means at their disposal to achieve victory. But in the real world, such rigid logic is unrealistic and dangerous. As a practical matter, the military objectives in real war that support political objectives generally fall into two broad types: "war to achieve limited aims"; and war to "disarm" the enemy, "to render [him] politically helpless or militarily impotent." Thus the complete defeat of the enemy may not be necessary, desirable, or even possible.

In modern times the reconstruction of Clausewitzian theory has been a matter of some dispute. One analysis was that of Panagiotis Kondylis, a Greek-German writer and philosopher, who opposed the interpretations of Raymond Aron in Penser la Guerre, Clausewitz, and other liberal writers. According to Aron, Clausewitz was one of the first writers to condemn the militarism of the Prussian general staff and its war-proneness, based on Clausewitz's argument that "war is a continuation of politics by other means." In Theory of War, Kondylis claims that this is inconsistent with Clausewitzian thought. He claims that Clausewitz was morally indifferent to war (though this probably reflects a lack of familiarity with personal letters from Clausewitz, which demonstrate an acute awareness of war's tragic aspects) and that his advice regarding politics' dominance over the conduct of war has nothing to do with pacifist ideas. For Clausewitz, war is simply a means to the eternal quest for power, of raison d'État in an anarchic and unsafe world.

Other notable writers who have studied Clausewitz's texts and translated them into English are historians Peter Paret of Princeton University and Sir Michael Howard, and the philosopher, musician, and game theorist Anatol Rapoport. Howard and Paret edited the most widely used edition of On War (Princeton University Press, 1976/1984) and have produced comparative studies of Clausewitz and other theorists, such as Tolstoy. Bernard Brodie's A Guide to the Reading of "On War", in the 1976 Princeton translation, expressed his interpretations of the Prussian's theories and provided students with an influential synopsis of this vital work.

The British military historian John Keegan has attacked Clausewitz's theory in his book A History of Warfare.[12] Keegan argued that Clausewitz assumed the existence of states, yet 'war antedates the state, diplomacy and strategy by many millennia'.

Influence

Clausewitz died without completing On War, but despite this his ideas have been widely influential in military theory and have had a strong influence on German military thought specificially. Later Prussian and German generals such as Helmuth Graf von Moltke were clearly influenced by Clausewitz: Moltke's notable statement that "No campaign plan survives first contact with the enemy" is a classic reflection of Clausewitz's insistence on the roles of chance, friction, "fog", uncertainty, and interactivity in war.

After 1890 or so, Clausewitz's influence spread to British thinking as well. One example is naval historian Julian Corbett (1854–1922), whose work reflected a deep if idiosyncratic adherence to Clausewitz's concepts. Clausewitz had little influence on American military thought before 1945, but influenced Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, and thus the Communist and Soviet traditions, as Lenin emphasized the inevitability of wars among capitalist states in the age of imperialism and presented the armed struggle of the working class as the only path toward the eventual elimination of war.[13] Because Lenin was an admirer of Clausewitz and called him "one of the great military writers", his influence on the Red Army was immense.[14] The Russian historian A.N. Mertsalov commented that "It was an irony of fate that the view in the USSR was that it was Lenin who shaped the attitude towards Clausewitz, and that Lenin's dictum that war is a continuation of politics is taken from the work of this anti-humanist anti-revolutionary."[14] Clausewitz directly influenced Mao Zedong, who read On War in 1938 and organized a seminar on Clausewitz as part of the educational program for the Party leadership in Yan'an. Thus the "Clausewitzian" content in many of Mao's writings is not merely second-hand knowledge via Lenin (as many have supposed), but reflects Mao's own in-depth study.[citation needed]

The idea that war involves inherent "friction" that distorts, to a greater or lesser degree, all prior arrangements, has become common currency in fields such as business strategy and sport. The phrase fog of war derives from Clausewitz's stress on how confused warfare can seem while immersed within it.[15] The term center of gravity, used in a military context derives from Clausewitz's usage, which he took from Newtonian Mechanics. In U.S. military doctrine, "center of gravity" refers to the basis of an opponent's power, at the operational, strategic, or political level, though this is only one aspect of Clausewitz's use of the term.

[edit] Late 20th and early 21st century

After 1970, some theorists claimed that nuclear proliferation made Clausewitzian concepts obsolete after the 20th-century period in which they dominated the world.[16] John E. Sheppard, Jr., argues that by developing nuclear weapons, state-based conventional armies simultaneously both perfected their original purpose, to destroy a mirror image of themselves, and made themselves obsolete. No two powers have used nuclear weapons against each other, instead using conventional means or proxy wars to settle disputes. If such a conflict did occur, presumably both combatants would be annihilated.

The end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century have seen many instances of state armies attempting to suppress insurgencies, terrorism, and other forms of asymmetrical warfare. If Clausewitz focused solely on wars between countries with well-defined armies, as many commentators have argued, then perhaps On War has lost its analytical edge as a tool for understanding war as it is currently fought. This is an ahistorical view, however, for the era of the French Revolution and Napoleon was full of revolutions, rebellions, and violence by "non-state actors", such as the wars in the French Vendée and in Spain. Clausewitz wrote a series of “Lectures on Small War” and studied the rebellion in the Vendée (1793-1796) and the Tyrolean uprising of 1809. In his famous “Bekenntnisdenkschrift” of 1812, he called for a “Spanish war in Germany” and laid out a comprehensive guerrilla strategy to be waged against Napoleon. In On War he included a famous chapter on “The People in Arms.”

One prominent critic of Clausewitz is the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld. In his book The Transformation of War,[17] Creveld argued that Clausewitz's famous "Trinity" of people, army, and government was an obsolete socio-political construct based on the state, which was rapidly passing from the scene as the key player in war, and that he (Creveld) had constructed a new "non-trinitarian" model for modern warfare. Creveld's work has had great influence. Daniel Moran replied, 'The most egregious misrepresentation of Clausewitz’s famous metaphor must be that of Martin van Creveld, who has declared Clausewitz to be an apostle of Trinitarian War, by which he means, incomprehensibly, a war of 'state against state and army against army,' from which the influence of the people is entirely excluded."[18] Christopher Bassford went further, noting that one need only read the paragraph in which Clausewitz defined his Trinity to see "that the words 'people,' 'army,' and 'government' appear nowhere at all in the list of the Trinity’s components.... Creveld's and Keegan's assault on Clausewitz's Trinity is not only a classic 'blow into the air,' i.e., an assault on a position Clausewitz doesn't occupy. It is also a pointless attack on a concept that is quite useful in its own right. In any case, their failure to read the actual wording of the theory they so vociferously attack, and to grasp its deep relevance to the phenomena they describe, is hard to credit."[19]

Some have gone further and suggested that Clausewitz's best-known aphorism, that war is a continuation of policy by other means, is not only irrelevant today but also inapplicable historically.[20] For an opposing view see Strachan, Hew, and Herberg-Rothe, Andreas, eds. Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (2007).[21] Others argue that the essentials of Clausewitz's theoretical approach remain valid, but that our thinking must adjust to the realities of particular times and places. Knowing that "war is an expression of politics by other means" does us no good unless we use a definition of "politics" that is appropriate to the circumstance and to the cultural proclivities of the combatants in each situation; this is especially true when warfare is carried on across a cultural or civilizational divide, and the antagonists do not share as much common background as did many of the participants in the First and Second World Wars.

In military academies, schools, and universities worldwide, Clausewitz's literature is often mandatory reading.[22]

In popular culture

Literature

· 1945: In the Horatio Hornblower novel The Commodore, by C. S. Forester, the protagonist meets Clausewitz during the events surrounding the defence of Riga

· 1945: In That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis, Lord Feverstone (Dick Devine) defends rudely cutting off another professor by saying "[...] but then I take the Clausewitz view. Total war is the most humane in the long run."

· 1955: In Ian Fleming's novel Moonraker, James Bond reflects that he has achieved Clausewitz's first principle in securing his base, though this base is a relationship for intelligence purposes and not a military installation.

· 1977: In The Wars by Timothy Findley, a novel about a 19-year-old Canadian officer who serves in World War I, one of his fellow soldiers reads On War, and occasionally quotes some of its passages.

· 2000: In the Ethan Stark military science fiction book series by John G. Hemry, Clausewitz is often quoted by Private Mendoza and his father Lieutenant Mendoza to explain events that unfold during the series.

· 2004: Bob Dylan mentions Clausewitz on pages 41 and 45 of his Chronicles: Volume One, saying he had "a morbid fascination with this stuff," that "Clausewitz in some ways is a prophet" and reading Clausewitz can make you "take your own thoughts a little less seriously." Dylan says that Vom Kriege was one of the books he looked through among those he found in his friend's personal library as a young man playing at The Gaslight Cafe in Greenwich Village.

Film

· 1962: In Lawrence of Arabia, General Allenby (Jack Hawkins) contends to T. E. Lawrence (Peter O'Toole) that "I fight like Clausewitz, you fight like Saxe", to which Lawrence replies, "We should do very well indeed, shouldn't we?"

· 1977: In Sam Peckinpah's Cross of Iron, Feldwebel Steiner (James Coburn) has an ironic conversation in the trenches in gaps in hostilities with the advancing Red Army with his comrade, Cpl. Schnurrbart, in which they refer to German philosophers and their views on war. Schnurrbart: " ...and von Clausewitz said, 'war is a continuation of state policy by other means.'" "Yes," Steiner says, overlooking the trenches, " ...by other means."

· 1995: In Crimson Tide, the naval officers of the nuclear submarine have a discussion about the meaning of the quote "War is a continuation of politics by other means." The executive officer (Denzel Washington) contends that the interpretation of Clausewitz's ideas by the captain (Gene Hackman) is too simplistic.

· 2004: In Downfall, set during the last days of the Third Reich, Hitler initiates Operation Clausewitz, as part of the last defence of Berlin

· 2007: In Lions for Lambs, during a military briefing in Afghanistan Lt. Col. Falco (Peter Berg) says: "Remember your von Clausewitz: 'Never engage the same enemy for too long or he will ...'", "adapt to your tactics", completes another soldier [23]

· 2009: In Law Abiding Citizen, Clausewitz is frequently quoted by Clyde Shelton (Gerard Butler), the main character





East German stamp honoring Clausewitz (1980)[34]



December 10 , 1812:

Second Division troops (of Tennessee militia) mustered in Nashville for expedition to New Orleans [35]


December 10, 1820:


Elizabeth Georgiana Adelaide of Clarence

December 10, 1820

March 4, 1821

Born and died at St James's Palace.


[36]

December 10, 1824




December 10, 1825

-

John Tyler started working as 23rd Govornor


Preceded by

John Randolph


Succeeded by

William Rives


23rd Governor of Virginia


In office
December 10, 1825 – March 4, 1827


Preceded by

James Pleasants


Succeeded by

William Giles


Member-elect of the Confederate States House of Representatives from Virginia's 3rd District


[37]

December 10, 1832: Ancestor and President Jackson issues a proclamation to South Carolina, calling its nullification of United tariff laws an act of rebellion.[38]

December 10, 1835: After five days of fighting, December 10, during which Milam is killed, the Battle of Bexar concludes with the surrender of Mexican forces. Cos agrees to withdraw to the south, leaving Texas under the control of the rebel army.[39]



December 10, 1861: Kentucky secedes from the Union.[40]



Sat. December 10, 1864:

Went turkey hunting with D. Winans but

No game wrote letter to LC Winans at night[41]

(William Harrison Goodlove Civil War Diary)[42]



December 10, 1864: Dr. William McKinnon Goodlove (1st cousin, 3 times removed) and the 57th Ohio Volunteer Infantry March to the sea November 15-December 10.. [43]



Dr. William McKinnon Goodlove (1st cousin, 3 times removed) and the 57th Ohio Volunteer Infantry at the Siege of Savannah December 10-21. [44]



December 10, 1875: Karoline Gottlieb, born December 10, 1875 in Neuhof. Resided Neuhof. Deportation: 1942, Ziel unknown[45]



November 18, 1801-December 10, 1877: George Washington Parke Custis Peter (November 18, 1801 – December 10, 1877, married Jane Boyce[5]

December 10, 1877: Aron Gottlieb, born December 10, 1877 in Neuhof LK Fulda.

Born Neuhof. Deportation: from Kassel. December 9, 1941. Riga. Declared legally dead.[46]



December 10, 1897: Bedrich Gottlob born December 10, 1897, AAz- August 4, 1942, Maly Trostinec.



• Zahynuli

• Transport AAu – Praha

• Terezin 27. cervence 1942

• 933 zahynulych

67 osvobozenych[47]



December 10, 1898: Almer Smith (b. December 10, 1898 in GA / d. January 21, 1918).[48]



December 10, 1914: Johanna Gottlieb, born December 10, 1914 in Frankfurt am Main. Resided Frankfurt a. M. Deportation: Ziel unknown.[49]



December 10, 1927: More about Susie Parker
Susie married William Roe James (b. December 10, 1927 in GA / d. December 1976). She then married Everett Bennett, Sr.[50]



December 10, 1941:



56

Rider Joy Cummings examines a Japanese cherry tree that was cut down with the words "To hell with those Japanese," carved into it, December 10, 1941. Irving C. Root, Parks Commissioner, termed it vandalism. In the background is the recently completed Jefferson Memorial. (AP Photo) #

December 10, 1941: Germany and Italy declare war on the United States, and the United States declare war on them. [51]



December 10, 1941: Although the group encountered no surface ships, Enterprise aircraft sank Japanese submarine I-70 at WikiMiniAtlas

23°45′N 155°35′W / 23.750°N 155.583°W / 23.750; -155.583 (USS Enterprise sinks I-70) on December 10, 1941.



In the days after the attack, the Enterprise refueled, assembled its flight compliment, and began to search for the Japanese Navy. The Japanese fleet had withdrawn and could not be found, but the Enterprise’s planes sank one Japanese submarine on December 10.

The Enterprise remained stationed in Hawaii in the wake of the attack, defending Pearl Harbor and sinking three Japanese ships in the process of reinforcing American position in the Marshall Islands.







December 10, 1942: The Polish government-in-exile asks the Allies to retaliate for the Nazi killing of civilians, especially Jews.[52]



The American Mercury and the Reader’s Digest were alone among mass-circulation magazines in bringing the extermination issue to public attention in the weeks following the revelations of late November 1942. Except for a few inconspicuous words on the UN declaration, such news magazines as Time, Life, and Newsweek over looked the systematic murder of millions of helpless Jews. The first clear comment on mass killing of Jews came on March 24, 1944.[53]



December 10, 1942: Almedia Haseltine Nix (b. 1860 in AL / d. December 10, 1942 in AL)

More about Almedia Nix
Almedia married James T. Craft (b. December 3, 1860 / d. April 19, 1939 in AL).[54]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[1] Notes[edit source | edit]

1. ^ There are several different spellings of "Catherine" that were in use during the 16th century and by historians today. Her one surviving signature spells her name "Kathryn" but this archaic spelling is rarely used anymore. Her chief biographer, Lacey Baldwin Smith, uses the common modern spelling "Catherine"; other historians, Antonia Fraser, for example, use the traditional English spelling of "Katherine".

2. ^ Bindoff 1982, p. 400.

3. ^ "Letter of Queen Catherine Howard to Master Thomas Culpeper – spring 1541". Primary Sources. englishhistory.net. Retrieved 2008-11-27.

4. ^ Weir 1991, p. 413.

5. ^ Boutell, Charles (1863). A Manual of Heraldry, Historical and Popular. London: Winsor & Newton. pp. 278–279

6. ^ Lacey Baldwin Smith A Tudor Tragedy, p. 173

7. ^ Weir 1991, p. 460.

8. ^ Farquhar, Michael (2001). A Treasure of Royal Scandals, p.77. Penguin Books, New York. ISBN 0-7394-2025-9; Text of letter from Howard to Culpeper

9. ^ p.170-171, Lacey Baldwin Smith, Lady Rochford

10. ^ Eleanor Herman, Sex with the Queen, William Morrow, 2006. ISBN 0-06-084673-9. See pages 81–82.

11. ^ Weir 1991, p. 451.

12. ^ Weir 1991, p. 474.

13. ^ Weir 1991, p. 478.

14. ^ 33 Hen.8 c.21

15. ^ 1991 Weir, p. 481.

16. ^ 1991 Weir, p. 480.

17. ^ Weir 1991, p. 482.

18. ^ Elisabeth Wheeler's exhaustive study Men of Power: court intrigue in the life of Catherine Howard. ISBN 978-1-872882-01-7.

19. ^ Weir 2000, p. 475.

20. ^ Strong, Roy: Artists of the Tudor Court: The Portrait Miniature Rediscovered 1520–1620, p. 50, Victoria & Albert Museum exhibit catalogue, 1983, ISBN 0-905209-34-6 (Strong 1983).

21. ^ Lord Edmund Howard, Catherine Howard's father, was the brother of Lady Elizabeth Howard, mother of Anne Boleyn (second wife of Henry VIII of England), making Catherine Howard and Anne Boleyn first cousins.

22. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Douglas Richardson. Magna Carta Ancestry: a study in colonial and medieval families, Genealogical Publishing Company, 2005. pg 435-441. Google eBook

23. ^ a b c d Douglas Richardson. Magna Carta Ancestry: a study in colonial and medieval families, Genealogical Publishing Company, 2005. pg 389.

Bibliography[edit source | edit]
•Smith, Jessica (1972). Katherine Howard.
•Lindsey, Karen (1995). Divorced, Beheaded, Survived: Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII. ISBN 0-201-40823-6.
•Starkey, David (2004) [2001]. Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII. ISBN 0-06-000550-5).
•Weir, Alison (1993). The Six Wives of Henry VIII. ISBN 0-8021-3683-4.
•Smith, Lacey Baldwin (1961). A Tudor tragedy: The life and times of Catherine Howard.
•Denny, Joanna (2005). Katherine Howard: A Tudor Conspiracy.
•Herman, Eleanor (2006). Sex with the Queen. ISBN 0-06-084673-9.

Wheeler, Elisabeth (2008). Men of Power: court intrigue in the life of Catherine Howard. ISBN 9781872882017.


[2] References^ a b c d Retha M. Warnicke, ‘Katherine [Katherine Howard] (1518x24–1542)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004

1. ^ Wagner, John A. Bosworth Field to Bloody Mary: An Encyclopedia of the Early Tudors. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2003.

2. ^ According to Culpepper Connections, The Culpepper Family History Site http://gen.culpepper.com/default.asp they were 7th cousins.

3. ^ "57 rooms down, 30 more to go...". The Daily Telegraph. 28 August 2004. Retrieved 2012-03-05.

4. ^ Wagner

5. ^ a b Robinson, Hastings (1846-7). Original Letters, I, letter 108 (Original Letters relative to the English Reformation, 2 volumes,. Parker Society,Cambridge. pp. 226–7. ISBN 1-113-21117-2.

6. ^ a b Smith, Lacey Baldwin. A Tudor Tragedy. New York: Pantheon Books, 1961.

7. ^ Follow Culpeper's paternal line from http://gen.culpepper.com/ss/p8603.htm and the paternal line of Howard's mother from http://gen.culpepper.com/ss/p8512.htm

8. ^ Howard, Catherine. Letter to Thomas Culpeper. 1541. TS. The National Archives, U.K.

9. ^ A Tudor Tragedy, The Life and Times of Catherine Howard, Lacey Baldwin Smith, 1961, The Reprint Society Ltd., page 61

10. ^ A Tudor Tragedy, Lacey Baldwin Smith, 1961, The Reprint Society Ltd, page 150, 151

11. ^ A Tudor Tragedy, Lacey Baldwin Smith, 1961, The Reprint Society Ltd, page 151

12. ^ Ford, Ford Madox (1963). The Fifth Queen. New York: The Vanguard Press. p. 36 et al.

External links[edit source | editbeta]
•Letter from Catherine Howard to Thomas Culpeper


[3] http://archive.org/stream/lettersofmarystu00mary/lettersofmarystu00mary_djvu.txt


[4] http://www.brittonplaces.com/2013/12/early-jamestown-timeline-1607-1699.html


[5] http://timothyv.tripod.com/index-338.html


[6] http://timothyv.tripod.com/index-338.html


[7] A State Road Marker (Latitude 39.624783°, Longitude -78.734500°) immediately southeast of Cumberland,

Maryland briefly summarizes the Jane Frazier story. While on her way to Fort Cumberland in October 1755, her

traveling companion was killed by Twightwee/Miami Indians. She was kidnapped and taken to Miami country, from

whence she escaped and returned home to find her husband had remarried. Her story is recited in detail in the 1923

book ―History of Allegany County‖. According to Hanna‘s 1911 book ―The Wilderness Trail‖, a November 14th, 1756 letter from Colonel Adam Stephen to Colonel John Armstrong, dated at Fort Cumberland, stated ―By a woman who once belonged to John Fraser (his wife or mistress) and has now, after being prisoner with Shingas, &c,thirteen months, made her escape from Muskingum, we learn that Shingas and some Delawares live near the head of that river…‖


[8] In Search of Turkey Foot Road, page


[9] Rev. Thompson Ege’s “Dodson Genealogy 1600-1907”.


[10] Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viscount_Strangford "


[11] http://timothyv.tripod.com/index-338.html


[12] http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~harrisonrep/Harrison/d0096/g0000014.html#I1020


[13] (COOK, 15)


[14] http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~cutlip/database/America.html


[15]


[16] In Search of the Turkey Foot Road, Page 6.


[17] http://www.mdlpp.org/pdf/library/1905AccountofVirginiaBoundaryContraversy.pdf


[18] http://christianparty.net/jewsexpelled.htm


[19] http://www.archive.org/stream/darfortduquesnef00daug/darfortduquesnef00daug_djvu.txt


[20] http://exhibits.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/athome/1700/timeline/index.html




[21] (Research notes of Miss JoAnn Naugle published by private letter.

(http://washburnhill.freehomepage.com/custom3.html)


[22] (Research notes of Miss JoAnn Naugle published by private letter.)

(http://washburnhill.freehomepage.com/custom3.html)


[23] Torrence and Allied Families, Robert M. Torrence pg. 482.


[24] Timeline of Cherokee Removal.


[25] Col. William Crawford was a Judge of this Court. His name could appear above either as brother in law or as Judge or as neighbor.


[26] (From Virginia Court Records in Pennsylvania. Records of West Augusta, Ohio and Yohogania Counties, Virginia, 1775-1780. by Boyd Crumrine. Baltimeore, Genealogical Publ. co., 1974. Page 326 III)


[27] (http://washburnhill.freehomepage.com/custom3.html)


[28] On this Day in America by John Wagman.


[29] Cynthiana Since 1790 By Virgil Peddicord, 1986.


[30] Cynthiana Since 1790 By Virgil Peddicord, 1986.


[31] The Brothers Crawford, Allen W. Scholl, 1995


[32] In Search of the Turkey Foot Road, page 19.


[33] (History Bourbon etc., p. 247) Chronology of Benjamin Harrison compiled by Isobel Stebbins Giuvezan. Afton, Missouri, 1973 http://www.shawhan.com/benharrison.html


[34] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz


[35] http://www.wnpt.org/productions/rachel/timeline/1812_1823.html


[36] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom


[37] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyler


[38] On This Day in America by James Wagman


[39] http://www.drtl.org/Research/Alamo2.asp


[40] State Capital Memorial, Austin, Texas, February 11, 2012


[41] Possibly Lewis Winans, born June 29, 1829 in Ohio. Brother of his now deceased wife and the brothers Winans in this Regiment.


[42] Annotated by Jeffery Lee Goodlove


[43] History of Logan County and Ohio, O.L. Basking & Co., Chicago, 1880. page 692.


[44] History of Logan County and Ohio, O.L. Basking & Co., Chicago, 1880. page 692.


[45] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,.


[46] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der

nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,.


[47] Terezinska Pametni Kniha, Zidovske Obeti Nacistickych Deportaci Z Cech A Moravy 1941-1945 Dil Druhy


[48] Proposed Descendants of William Smythe.


[49] [1] Gedenkbuch, Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationalsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft in Deutschland 1933-1945. 2., wesentlich erweiterte Auflage, Band II G-K, Bearbeitet und herausgegben vom Bundesarchiv, Koblenz, 2006, pg. 1033-1035,.


[50] Proposed Descendants of William Smythe.


[51] Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page 1769


[52]Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman, Editor, page 1775


[53] The abandonment of the Jews, by David S. Wyman, page 57, 364.


[54] Proposed Descendants of William Smythe.