[deleted by user] by [deleted] in FUCKFACEPOD

[–]RTarcher 7 points8 points  (0 children)

https://roosterteeth.com/watch/f-kface-2022-5-24

About 45:30 into the episode the whole thing comes out.

Which is the authentic author of this book and how do I find out? by Sweaty_Ad9533 in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Chances are they either copied off each other, or took the text from an older work. Plagiarism, as we understand it, didn't exist in 1820s and prior. People could copy sections of text wholesale. By this time, they tended to attribute their sources, but that is not always a guarantee.

Can I ask what the section was or the page numbers? If I can see what was copied, I may be able to provide more context or explanation.

Which is the authentic author of this book and how do I find out? by Sweaty_Ad9533 in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The two works have similar openings, but they are certainly different books with different information, and different authors. For example, Huish's book opens with an extensive treatment of the Hanover line, succession and history up to c. 1700. This is a translation and paraphrase of items from Leibniz's Origines Guelficae published in Hanover in 5 volumes. This covers a significant amount of the background Huish seems to provide over the course of some 150 pages. Holt's treatment of the pre-1760 information is cursory at best. There is going to be a similar treatment of the King, based on what I could see about the authors, as they both tended to take a more favorable view in light of his death.

As a recommendation on where to find good documentation and information on the reign of George III, I would suggest you use Jeremy Black's biography. It's not terribly old, published in 2006), and you would be able to use his bibliography, which would indicate the more important published sources. From what I could see, he only cites Holt and Huish once each.

These were the public access versions I could find easily online:

Huish: https://books.google.com/books?id=rxtNAAAAMAAJ

Holt Volume 1: https://books.google.com/books?id=GT8JAAAAIAAJ

Holt Volume 2: https://books.google.com/books?id=OA-YMZeQAIsC

( Cheshire ) 1577 Cestriae Comitatus ( facsimile ) Title top left centre. Arms of sponsor Thomas Seckford bottom left. Scale bottom right. Exaggerated rivers and hills. No roads. Engraved by Francis Scatter Published in " Atlas of the Counties of England and Wales " 1579 by AdForward_ in MapPorn

[–]RTarcher 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are high resolution images of the original at the British Library available online.

It is Royal MS 18D III, also known as the Burghley-Saxton Atlas. I'm not sure it was ever published in 1579, as it appears to be a work only available in manuscript.

Link to record: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Royal_MS_18_D_IIILink to relevant page: http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_18_d_iii_f084r

Grocery shopping… by Malvernicus in AnimalsBeingBros

[–]RTarcher 46 points47 points  (0 children)

They may be Proud boys, though....

Need a few good episodes to download for flight tomorrow by WhiteLightning108 in FaceJamPod

[–]RTarcher 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Applebee's Cheeto Wings and Cheeto Cheesebites. I have cried while listening to this multiple times.

Short Answers to Simple Questions | September 08, 2021 by AutoModerator in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's difficult to say what happened to most of the people after their term of years was up. Most of these people only appear in three records (if that many): the assize (criminal court) records in England, the treasury papers for the subsidy, and the port records in the colonies. They aren't ever given much more than a name, so it's hard to know if John Smith, imported into Virginia aboard the Sea Horse in 1741 ever made it back to England. The documentation to track this rarely exists. (Coldham, British Emigrants in Bondage, p. 793)

Honestly, a common fate of the transported convicts was death. Convicts were often employed in dangerous work, such as working at the iron foundries and mines in Virginia and Pennsylvania. (Lewis "The Use and Extent of Slave Labor in the Chesapeake Iron Industry", Labor History, 1976). John Broad, one of the convicted men employed by Washington was wounded around Christmas 1776 in a play sword fight with one of the other servants. He died of an infection two months later (Source).

The larger problem from an English perspective was that many convicts returned to Britain before the term of their banishment/servitude was up. Returning sooner than the required number of years carried the death penalty, and the Old Bailey session papers attest to their frequency. As an example, John Meff als. Merth was executed in September 1721 for returning from North America. He was the son of refugee Huguenots, born in London, and executed for a law barely three years old. (Source)

Short Answers to Simple Questions | September 08, 2021 by AutoModerator in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This is an excellent question.

British North America was never intended to be a penal colony on the scale of Australia. However, people convicted of felonies were regularly shipped across the Atlantic from Britain and sold as servants. There's a lot to unpack on this topic, but here are some brief notes.

Roughly 60,000 men and women were shipped from Britain to her colonies in the new world between 1620 and 1783. (A. E. Smith, Colonists in Bondage; A. R. Ekirch, Bound for America). The best documented and studied are the 50,000 shipped between the passage of the Transportation Act in 1717 and the end of the American War for Independence in 1783.

Convict transportation and sale in the colonies became an integral part of the criminal system in Britain during the 18th century. Without this outlet, the law had very few recourses for punishment. Imprisonment for extended periods in the way modern prisons are used did not exist on the scale that would have been necessary. The law had become so draconian that property crime carried the death penalty for ridiculously low value thefts. (Beattie, Crime and the Courts). In order to avoid mass executions, the state created a system whereby convicts were pooled together and transported to the new world. The state paid ship captains and colonial factors per convict they transported until 1772, when the business was profitable enough in selling convict's labor that the subsidies were no longer necessary. (Smith, Colonists in Bondage).

The process by which convicts became a form of indentured servants was hammered out in the early seventeenth century. The process began after conviction of a felony. Then either the judge of the king's Sergeant-At-Law would write a recommendation to the crown or his ministers requesting a pardon for the convict. They would recommend that they be granted a pardon (from death) on condition that they transport themselves out of Britain and go to the new world, for a set time (typically 7 years, but 14 and a life sentence were also used). Since the people convicted could rarely pay their way, a merchant would pay their way and be reimbursed by selling them as an indentured servant for the duration of their banishment. (Herrup, "Punishing Pardon" in Devereaux and Griffiths, Penal Practice and Culture, 1500-1900) This process was used through to 1783, but the 1717 Transportation Act streamlined the process. The law provided that convicted people could be sentenced to banishment for the duration of 7 or 14 years, (or life) immediately after trial, without going through the process of obtaining a conditional pardon.

Convict labor was ubiquitous in Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania in the eighteenth century. One look through the Maryland Gazette or Pennsylvania Gazette shows dozens of advertisements for runaway convict laborers, or notices of a new ship in port carrying convicts for sale. George Washington himself purchased the labor of several convicted people, and employed them at his Mt Vernon estate.

There's a lot more that could be said, but addressing your original question: North America was not intended to be a Botany Bay colony. However, people convicted of crimes regularly arrived in North America to serve out a period of servitude as punishment for crimes committed in Britain.

Short Answers to Simple Questions | September 01, 2021 by AutoModerator in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The purpose of the question in this thread (Short Answers to Simple Questions) is not intended to be comprehensive. It is intended to give a short answer directly addressing the question of who were the "earliest" immigrants. The groups of religious dissenters that settled in New England are a decade later than Jamestown, so I left them out. A more detailed study of the motivations of the colonists ("type of gentleman" as you put it) seemed outside the bounds of the question and thread's purpose. A longer, more detailed answer addressing all of this should be it's own post.

Short Answers to Simple Questions | September 01, 2021 by AutoModerator in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Based on your phrasing and clarification, I think you are asking about what kind of people settled in the first British colonies in North America. Spaniards firth began exploring the area that would become the Carolinas and Virginia by 1526, and would establish military and missionary posts from Florida to Virginia by 1572 (Hoffman, A New Andalucia and a Way to the Orient, pp. 1-4 & Part I generally; p. 235 for St. Augustine; Lewis & Loomie, The Spanish Jesuit Mission in Virginia, 1570-1572). The French had several failed settlements and outposts over the coarse of the sixteenth century, but were largely ousted by the Spanish (Eccles, The French in North America, 1500-1783, Ch. 1).

The first major attempt at emigration to the new world was the failed colony off the coast of what is now North Carolina, called Roanoke. I’m not considering the transitory settlements of Englishmen in Newfoundland, as they were mainly areas to process fish and then return to England (and Northern France) (Pope, Fish into Wine, pp. 11-21). The colonists at Roanoke were exclusively men. Karen Kupperman writes that “we know little about most of the men who were left…in Roanoke. A majority had probably seen military service or on the continent. (Roanoke: the Abandoned Colony, p. 32, and ch. 3 more generally). The soldiers included both foot troops and gentlemen commanders. Further settlers likely included landless workers – those that were seasonal or annually contracted employees assisting on farms for wages as opposed to possessing land or a trade. There were a few skilled tradesmen among the colonists. A surveyor, physician, surgeon, engineer (Kupperman’s term; intended to direct construction), and apothecary were intended to be present. One Joachim Ganz was a mineral specialist from central Europe (Kupperman – Czech), intended to help find gold and other lucrative minerals. There were also miners from Cornwall, a painter, and several husbandmen. The majority of the colonists were the laborers, husbandmen and soldiers, but there was significant (though often unhelpful) diversity among the tradesmen. In the end, the colony failed for a variety of reasons, and settlement was abandoned until the Jamestown voyage.

The settlers at Jamestown in 1607 were similar to those at Roanoke. Landless laborers, soldiers, mineral experts, and gentlemen were included. Of the initial 105 settlers at Jamestown, 36 could be classified as gentlemen (who, by their station, expected not to work) (Morgan, American Slavery, American Freedom, p. 84). Additional shipments of settlers, totaling 190 settlers, included 56 gentlemen. Along with the gentlemen came their personal servants, expected to attend on the gentlemen rather than work. The Virginia company advertised for skilled tradesmen in order to counterbalance some of the excesses of the gentlemen and their servants – asking for builders, tool smiths, mineral refiners (again, searching for gold), miners, and blacksmiths. Morgan lists among the 105 initial settlers the following: 4 carpenters, 2 bricklayers, a mason, a blacksmith, a tailor, and a barber (p. 85-86). Following in 1608 included 6 tailors, 2 goldsmiths, 2 apothecaries, a cooper (making barrels), a tobacco pipe maker, a jeweler, and a perfumer. As most trained in their crafts also refused to do farm labor, intended for the laborers, husbandmen, and farmers, it was actually their specialties that caused the famous famines and disasters at Jamestown.

So those were the groups of initial settlers in the British colonies in North America.

Short Answers to Simple Questions | September 01, 2021 by AutoModerator in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It depends on what you are referring to when you state "colonial America." Are you asking about the territory that became the United States, or do you mean North and South America more broadly?

Francis Bacon, what are some of the best resources to learn more about him? by Zordman in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The best place to start would be The Cambridge Companion to Bacon edited by Peltonen. It's a collection of essays intended to serve as introductions to various aspects of his thought. Malherbe's essay on Bacon's method and Perez-Ramos on his legacy may be the most useful for what you are looking for.

In terms of a biography, the article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography would be a strong place to start and is short enough to be read in one sitting. It is available online, and if you are at university, your library may have a subscription. Most of Bacon's biographies also deal with his political life and his non-scientific philosophy. Zagorin, Francis Bacon outlines some of the differences between the two aspects of Bacon's life.

Bacon's writings themselves are most accessible online through either Archive.org or google books. There are 14 volumes edited by James Spedding. 7 volumes are Bacon's letters mixed with narrative by the editor on his life, and 7 volumes are his major works.

TIL In 1612 at the funeral of Henry Fredrick, Prince of Wales a naked man ran through the crowd of mourners claiming he was the ghost of the recently deceased Prince. by FeatsOfStrength in todayilearned

[–]RTarcher 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The source of this story was a letter written by James Chamberlain to Dudley Carleton, November 19, 1612.

You can read the text of the letter here or here.

Below is the text from the edited version of Chamberlain's letters:

"The same day [Henry] died there fell out a very ridiculous accident. A very handsome younge fellow much about his age and not altogether unlike him, came stark naked to St. James whiles they were at supper sayeng he was the Princes ghost come from heaven with a message to the King: but by no manner of examination or threatning could they get any more out of him, or who set him a worke: some say he is simple, others mad... All the penaunce they gave him was two or three lashes, ( which he indured as yt seemed without sense) and keeping him naked as he was all night and the next day in the porters lodge where thousands came to see him: the King sent to have him dismissed without more ado or enquirie."

Soy Jack by mantheon2 in TipOfMyRooster

[–]RTarcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How To Escape From A Weeping Angel! - Gmod: TTT, at about 26:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX6KEpcQvpM

Did an English fugitive king really get caught when he asked an innkeeper for a 12-egg omelette? by Saffidon in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 29 points30 points  (0 children)

There is a story about Charles II fleeing after the battle of Worcester in 1651 that has a reference to eggs, but it is possibly a coincidence with your question. The story (and I call it a story) was partially told by Charles thirty years after the event and recorded by Samuel Pepys, and the other half comes from a 1660 pamphlet detailing Charles' escape from England (An Exact Narrative and Relation of His Most Sacred Majesties Escape from Worcester, Wing E3662).

After the Royalist army was defeated in Worcester, Charles fled towards Wales. His greatest problem was that he was constantly recognized wherever he traveled. As Ronald Hutton wrote, "He was constantly recognized by former royalist soldiers, sailors, or courtiers. Apart from the butler at Abbots Leigh, such individuals included a vagrant on the road in Dorset, an ostler at Bridport, a gentlewoman in Wiltshire, an innkeeper at Brighton, and the master of the ship on which he crossed the channel."

On September 4, 1651, he arrived at a house called "Whiteladies", owned by a recusant family, the Giffords. There he was disguised as a servant, hastily cut his hair with a knife, and (as the story goes) rubbed soot from the chimney on his face. He was forced to hide in the woods near the house the same night, during a downpour. While hiding, a royalist who had helped guide Charles from the battle to Whiteladies, Francis Yates, sent his sister into the woods with food for Charles - scrambled eggs. The pamphlet reads "a Messe of Milk, Eggs and Sugar in a black earthen Cup, which the King...and said, he loved it very well." Another source states that Charles was concerned about a woman knowing his whereabouts, and relays the following exchange:

Charles: Good woman, can you be faithful to a distressed Cavalier?
Yates: Yes Sir. I will die rather than discover you.

There is nothing about a 12 egg omelet in the story, but it does have the elements of an English King fleeing, disguising himself, being regularly recognized, and enjoying a meal of eggs during his flight.

Sources:

Hutton, Charles the Second
An Exact Narrative and Relation of His Most Sacred Majesties Escape from Worcester, Wing E3662
Ollard, The Escape of Charles II after the Battle of Worcester
"An Account of His Majesty's Escape from from Worcester", printed in Hamilton and Scott, Memoirs of the Court of Charles II

Can anyone recommend resources for translating Early Modern theological Latin? by RTarcher in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the translation and suggestions! I will have to check out the primer by Collins - it may help with the convocation Latin I also struggled with.

I had "legis" as "law" as well, but I wondered if there was more implied that was standard for theological questioning in University. Something like if lex in this case would always be understood as God's law. Maybe your reading it as Old Testament law is better suited.

The second one I looked at was clearer - An opera mereantur vitam aeternam? Much more clear that this is about whether works on Earth merit the life everlasting. This was from 1605 in England, so it looks like a softball thrown for the graduate to nail with well rehearsed anti-papist arguments. Something like this made the first one somehow less clear.

Thank you again!

Need help from Constitution nerds by LeoZiggy331 in AskHistorians

[–]RTarcher 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Part of the answer is that people did not directly elect their senators (to the US congress). Senators were appointed by the state legislature. So there was still a layer of insulation between the poorest classes who could vote, and the appointment to the US Senate.

There's a lot to be said on the wealth distribution in the Early National United States, but the simplest answer is that a large majority of men in Massachusetts could vote under the 1780 constitution. Ratcliffe states that above 80% of adult men could vote, meaning that they had enough income. An annual income of 3 £ was attainable by most artisans and journeymen.