Reconstruction

The Reconstruction Era in the United States was the period of time after the Civil War during which they were ‘reconstructing’ the Southern states. It began at the end of the war in 1865, and ended twelve years later in 1877 with the Compromise of 1877.

After the Civil War, Lincoln’s plan of action was based upon the belief that the states hadn’t actually seceded, and therefore shouldn’t be punished. He thought they ought to pardon Southerners who had participated in the war if they swore allegiance to the United States, and that the states would be reinstated into the Union if 10% of said states population swore allegiance.

The 13^th amendment was passed in 1865, abolishing slavery in the States. Lincoln was assassinated at the Ford’s Theater by John Wilkes Booth, and Andrew Johnson succeeded him as President. He began reconstruction with a plan based upon Lincoln’s.

The last slaves in the United States were emancipated on June 19^th, 1865, but Mississippi created black codes, which limited the rights of freed blacks, and this became common through-out the Southern states.

In 1866, the 14^th amendment was passed, which ensured equal protection to all people, but the majority of Southern States rejected it. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was passed as well, which granted full citizenship and civil rights to all blacks. The Ku Klux Klan was founded in Tennessee during 1866 as well, and would go on to extend through-out the whole of the South by 1868. The first Transatlantic cable was completed during 66 as well.

In 1867, The Military Reconstruction Act divided the previous Confederacy into five military districts, which were policed by Union generals. The Tenure of Office Act was passed in 67, which made it so that Congress approval was required before the President could remove appointees. Johnson ignored this act, and removed Republican Edwin Stanton from his position as Secretary of War, which very much so irritated Congress, as he had been one of the people the Act had been issued to protect. Also in 67, the US purchased Alaska from Russia in what was named Stewards Folly.

In 1868, Johnson was impeached by the House but acquitted by the Senate. The 14^th amendment was ratified by the states, Ulysses S. Grant became President, and an eight hour workday became law for federal workers.

In 1869, Wyoming became the first state to grant suffrage to women. In 1870, the 15^th amendment was ratified to give black males the right to vote, and the last four states on the Confederate side were readmitted (Texas, Virginia, Mississippi, & Georgia). The first black Senator, Hiram E. Revels, took the seat of Jefferson Davis. The Enforcement Act was passed, allowing for government intervention with the KKK, and a Californian case White vs. Flood got segregation of schools by race started.

In 1871, The Indian Appropriation Act was passed, making all Native Americans wards of the state, the Great Chicago Fire occurred, and England paid 15.5mil in damages from them helping the Confederates during the War.

In 1872, Ulysses S. Grant was reelected as President, Democrats reclaimed control of Southern state governments in a process called Redemption, and the Yellowstone Park was established. In 1873, the Panic of 1873 happened, caused by railroad speculation. In 1874, The Woman’s Christian Temperance Union was founded.

In 75, the Whiskey Ring Scandal occurred during Grants term, and many of his associates were prosecuted. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 was passed, establishing penalties to those who denied equal rights, the usage of hotels, theaters, stores, etc., to any citizen.

In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden (The former republican, the latter democrat) ran against each other in the Presidential election. Tilden won the popularity vote, but the electoral vote was disputed. An electoral commission intervened and gave Hayes all the votes. The democratic party agreed to this, if all federal troops were removed from the Southern states. They agreed upon these terms, troops were removed from the Southern states in 1877, and Hayes became President. This is called the Compromise of 1877, and is was the end of Reconstruction.

Role Models

 Prompt: Can people who are not famous be better role models than people who are famous?

Some of the best advice I’ve ever heard was to be the kind of person you wish you could meet. What fills your mind when you think about that? I get messy artists who have posters all over everywhere and travel to galleries and conventions all over the place, and who play drums like a boss and go for runs with their dog and have crazy hair and have parties and are inspiring and leave an impression and change lives and sing in public places and can actually draw a crowd. Like, that’s what I want to be like. Now, see, those people are imaginary, meaning even people who aren’t necessarily real can be role models, also meaning there is no certain amount of fame a person must hold to be a role model.

I find the prompt to be a stupid question. Can they? Yes, they can. Duh. Famous people tend to be role models because they have money and can put themselves out there and get a message across because.. well, they’re famous. People want to be as well known and successful as whatever-famous-person-they-admire, and plus famous people are like, household names. Everyone knows who they are, and what they’ve done, and so others can understand what you’re trying to achieve if its close to what the famous person achieved. Now, non-famous people can totally be role-models too. Like, every person can accomplish admirable things and be proud of who and what they are, and if you’re around them and develop a relationship and they’ve done something you strive for, BAM they are a role model. Just because they aren’t on tv doesn’t mean jack.

Who your role models are depends on you and who you want to be, and I’m struggling with the prompt and the thought that people need to think about this. I feel like most of the prompts the teacher gives are stereotypes, or something. I mean, do people actually think like this.? Do people really have to think about whether or not some 20 something who works at walmart can be a role model or not.? I mean, are people out there seriously so shallow.? The ability to be a role model does not stem from having money. It stems from being something people can look up to. And even then it’s not that, it’s being something people can connect to. Not relate, that’s to stuck up sounding, like something in english class where “oh, this and this are similar, they must relate” that makes it the stuff in the middle section of a Venn diagram, and that makes them look up to soembody. I mean connect. Like you feel it in your gut, like theres a string attaching your hearts together. THAT there is something to feel, and I think being able to feel that makes it work. I don’t know if I’m really making sense, but you shouldn’t relate to them, you should feel them. (not like actual touching, but like.. you know.?)

I look up to Tyler Joseph and Josh Dun, and my people I wish I could meet, and Hayley Williams and people who aren’t afraid to do and try new stuff and Johnny Depp and techies and people who already are who they are and charismatic strangers and Augustus Waters and people with pretty smiles. I’m not like, picky about it. If I like it, I like it, and I’ll try to be something such as. Like, I wish I could be a female Augustus Waters, because, come on, he’s amazing and charming and attractive and puts the killing thing between his teeth but doesn’t give it the power to kill him. What it is you want to be is all in your head, and it isn’t so hard as people like to make it seem to figure out.

The Life Cycle Of A Butterfly

We’re going to talk about the life cycle of butterflies. All four stages of the butterflies’ life; egg, larva, pupa and butterfly. The Red Admiral butterfly will be the focus; the main butterfly here.

Butterflies are oviparous (which means they lay eggs that will hatch later on), and there are many variants as to how the eggs will look, such as color, size, and texture, all depending upon which species laid it. Eggs will be laid on the leaves or stems of plants, or on the bark of trees, depending on what the host plant of species is. One to three weeks will be taken up until the egg hatches into a caterpillar.

Once the embryo has developed fully, the caterpillar on the inside begins to eat its way out of the egg. Finally on the outside, it simply eats. It eats leaves and plants and such, usually whatever it happens to be walking on. They do this until they hit the pupal stage.

The pupal stage consists of the caterpillar spinning itself into a cocoon, in which they stay for a few weeks all the way up to a few months, depending on the species. They change drastically while inside this cocoon, although its practically undetectable from the outside.

The last stage is the butterfly stage. Butterflies still have a caterpillar-like body, wormy with tiny hairs and thin, prickly legs, along with the large, colorful, hard-to-miss wings. The majority of butterfly species only live a few weeks.

I chose to research the Red Admiral butterfly, not for any particular reason other than I like the scientific name, which is Vanessa Atalanta. It’s quite attractive, with its under-wings a mottled brown and the top is brown/black with a curved red streak.

Pellitory and False Nettle are the host plants of the Red Admiral. They lay their eggs, which are green with pale vertical lines, on these plants. When the caterpillars hatch, they make nests out of the leaves to hide inside of.

After the pupal stage, the butterfly emerges and pumps its wings, getting then circulation going and making itself stronger. After this, it expels liquid meconium (waste from the pupal stages, do not google it as the photos are a bit gross) which is red and is mistaken for blood quite often, although it isn’t at all.

The Red Admiral doesn’t feed on flowers so much as over-ripened fruit and animal waste.

Butterflies go through a life cycle consisting of the egg stage, the larva stage, the pupal stage, and the butterfly stage. The Red Admiral butterfly is a curious one, with odd feeding habits and attractive wings. Butterflies are literally childhood and laughter drifting on air, and researching them and writing about them wasn’t to terrible a task.

BIBS:

Smith, Edith. “Red Admiral Butterfly.” Butterflyfunfacts.com. Stephen & Edith Smith. Accessed 2/27/2015.

“Butterfly Life Cycle.” Butterflylifecycle.org. Accessed 2/27/2015

“Red Admiral.” Gardenswithwings.com. Accessed 2/27/2015

The Civil War

“He hates what he believes and loves it at the same time,” -Kitchen Sink by TOP

This week I’ve been studying the American Civil War. From the Battle of Bull Run to the Battle of Cold Harbor, to the Siege of Petersburg, and many bloody battles in between, the whole thing was a viscous mess.

The prompt says to tell what my favorite part about this weeks’ lessons. I quite liked the fact that I didn’t have a PDF worksheet. I like the map, I think mostly for the fact that I used sharpies, which I love.

What I found most interesting about studying the Civil War was the fact that I’m human, that they were human. Me and you and them and us, as a species, we did that. Even though we weren’t alive then, and we had nothing to do with it, we did that. And life as we know it now is a product of what people did then.

Can you imagine it? Not being a specific person or anything, but just being there, apart of it? Fighting for what you believe in, sometimes to the death, fighting for your rights and your freedom. Killing people. That’s the bit that gets me; people killed people. I mean it’s completely downplayed from what it was, made softer for the public’s consumption, but it was brutal and bloody and violent. And that’s the thing. Violence is sick. Its freaking disgusting. BUT at the same time, I get it because I’ve got some freakish, violent fantasies, and I’ll cheer when someone gets a popped in the face, and I love horror movies and oh my gosh. And then I guess that’s human nature, right? We are violent and murderous, but at the same time loving and caring and sweet. I can’t think about any of this without twisting it into a pressing psychological matter, which I find disturbing in myself, and along with the fact that apparently “everyone goes through stuff like this”, I find people in general disturbing. After this thought process, I go back to the matter at hand, the Civil War, and basically I decide that everyone involved just cared so much about what they believed and what they thought was right, that they would defend it with everything they had, crossing psychological lines and mental borders and moral boundaries, killing and maiming and destroying those who stood in the way.

Slavery was one of the baseline causes of the Civil War. You could say it was THE cause, but that wouldn’t be necessarily true. The area the Southern states occupied were more equipped with the natural resources and good soil and such to grow crops such as cotton and tobacco, so they grew and developed and a great many plantations popped up, and as they used slaves for laborers on plantations, slaves were more employed in the Southern area rather than the Northern area, and Southerners relied more heavily upon slaves for their income. The boss-men of the country tried to tell the states what they could do and what they couldn’t slave-wise, saying that this state or the other would be a slave state or a non-slave state, which freaked the Southerners out because a lot of them had became prissy gentlemen who couldn’t work like the slaves had done. They wished to secede, to make their own country were slavery was perfectly legal and they couldn’t be told they could own slaves. Now, Abraham Lincoln thought that secession was illegal, although he didn’t really have a position on slavery at the beginning; he said he wouldn’t get into that because it wasn’t his business. But he did think secession was wrong, as I said, and that was what the fight was about. These states had every right to secede, even if they had shoddy reasons for wanting to do so. And the people believed that they did have this right, even those against slavery. It doesn’t make sense for them to not have it. Lincoln was going against what the people believed, and he realized it. He changed his stance. He changed it from anti-secession to anti-slavery, and this grabbed the people. Many thought slavery was wrong, possibly a by-product of not relying on the slaves to keep food on the table, possibly pity, possibly its just they thought it was wrong to treat other humans like defecation. Lincoln gained a following with this new stance, enough so that the Union side was able to beat the rebel side. There was no secession, slavery was abolished, the war officially ended.

This is the Civil War to my understanding. Battles took place that were bloody and vicious, and things were gained that aren’t so much material as emotional… And people became free. The notion that a human could own another human was abrogated.

Telescopes

So, what I’ve learned in science this week:

Hans Lippershey was the first to come up with a description of a telescope, making him the creator, and was in the process of issuing a patent when Galileo heard about said design and built one himself. The majority of people know who Galileo is versus others who made contributions to the invention and popularization of the telescope, so he is one of the most famous astronomers there is. Giovanni Demisiani coined the name ‘telescope’, because ‘tele’ means far and ‘scope’ meaning seeing, i.e. ‘far seeing’. Telescopes work by using a ‘light bucket’, which is a primary/objective lens, which focuses the light to the eyepiece lens, which in turn focuses the image onto your retina. Our eyes are not large enough to capture a large enough amount of light to see far off images, but a telescope is much larger than our eyes, so it can ‘see’ more and concentrate it onto our eyes. There are two main categories of telescopes, Refracting and Reflecting. Refracting telescopes were the very first type of telescopes made. They work as I described before, but they aren’t necessarily the most popular type of telescope. They can get Chromatic Aberration, which is a type of distortion in which the lens’ fail to focus all the colors to the same convergence point. Which means that you see a rainbow halo thing when you look through it. (more on refracting telescopes: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/refracting.html ) Now, Reflecting telescopes. These were invented by Isaac Newton, and these use mirrors instead of clear lens’. The use of mirrors prevents Chromatic Aberration, meaning there isn’t a rainbow mist in the way of the stars, but as light doesn’t go through mirrors, but instead reflects off of them, some light will be blocked out, making for a picture that isn’t as good as it could be. (more on reflecting telescopes: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/reflecting_telescope.html ) Telescopes are our eyes in the sky. (Hahah)

End.

Is most of what people buy totally unnecessary?

So, the prompt asks if everything-or at least most-of what we buy is unnecessary. Yes. It is. Even the things we consider ‘necessary’ aren’t needed. No matter what, we all die, and everything we have, need, or know will evaporate into nothingness. Oblivion is inevitable.

Food, water, and oxygen. That’s what is needed to stay alive. The only ‘necessary’ things in life. That said, there is absolutely no conceivable reason for anything else. Food grows out of the ground. It walks. We don’t need to create artificial foods; they aren’t necessary. Yet we make them. Why? Simple whim, I suppose.

No, you do not need that pink towel. You don’t even need a towel, period. You can air dry. You don’t need a non-stick pan, either. NOTHING is really needed. I cannot stress that enough. You will die. The people who know you will die. The only way to be remembered is to do something with your life, but have you done that? I doubt it. Not yet, at least. But even then, if you did something worthy of being remembered for, eventually, our whole world will be dead. Our sun will burn out. Zombie apocalypse. Aliens. Nobody knows how, but it will end someday. So, yeah, nothing we buy is necessary.

We may be an accidental speck in an enormous void, but stop focusing on that. Who gives a crap if its necessary? Why must it be useful?

Once, I was in the car with my grandma. A Weezer song was on, (I’m pretty sure that’s what it was) and they were singing this one sort of sound.. Like “Ah, ah, ah” or something, and my grandma changes the station. I happen to like this song, so I look at her and ask, “You don’t like Weezer?”. She says no, I don’t like them saying that same thing over and over. I mean, what’s the point of it?

What’s the point of anything? What’s the point of your excessive amount of potholders? What’s the point of all your work out videos that you don’t use? What’s the point in all the broken sewing machines you have? Huh? What. Is. The. Freaking. Point. ?

There is no point. But don’t focus on that. Focus on the fact that you have a consciousness. Focus on the fact that you can DO things. Focus on the fact that you have a will, that you can say you did something. Focus on people. Focus on people most of all.

I would like to disclose that I do not believe in religion. I think it’s dumb, it draws us apart, it creates invisible lines that when crossed causes war and hatred. Plus, scientifically it doesn’t make sense. I can’t wrap my head around it. But, if I had to have a religion, it would be people, because what is better to live for than what we really are?

People are freaking amazing. I mean, I can’t stand people. Too many warped ideas and rules and restrictions and societal molds to fit into and mean, rude, buttheads and labels and “I don’t like you because of a physical/mental/emotional/ differential variable thing that is stupid and I realize its stupid but people will judge me if I don’t judge you and that’s stupid too and everybody knows its stupid but it still happens”es. But put all that aside, people are great. People are what give people a point.

I read this book called ‘Evidence Of Things Not Seen’ by Lindsey Lane. This kid goes missing, and the whole book is the sheriff interviewing people in town about what they think happened to him. (theres other stuff too, but basically that‘s whats going on… its a really good book. You should read it) Anyways, this kid was always writing in this notebook, and throughout the book, bits of paper show up. One, at the beginning, says something along the lines of: We are each made up of tiny little particles, and every time we meet somebody, little particles of us stick to them and little particles of them stick to us and as we meet more people and do more and experience more, we get more and more particles, and in the end, that’s how we get whole. Something like that. I thought it was freaking beautiful.

No, most of the things we buy aren’t ‘necessary’, but I don’t care, you shouldn’t care. Stop caring about that. Care about something important, like music or paintings or puppies. Just care in general about good things and making sure they continue to happen. Quit asking why, and start asking why not.

A Tale Of Two Cities vs. The Scarlet Pimpernel

Coffee<3. I almost punched the computer screen out typing this.

Today, I shall be doing a compare/contrast book review. Both book are set during the French Revolution, although they were written in totally different styles and by different people. A Tale Of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, and The Scarlet Pimpernel by Baroness Emma Orczy.

A Tale Of Two Cities by Charles Dickens is arguably one of his most famous works, although it can’t possibly beat A Christmas Carol. I haven’t actually read any of his other books, so I don’t have an opinion as to if this could be considered good or bad in contrast to the others.

Born February 7^th, 1812, Charles John Huffam Dickens is considered one of the greatest novelists of the Victorian period. He wrote nearly forty five books over his lifetime, some of which are short stories, others of which are full-blown novels. He was married to Catherine Dickens, and had six children; Charles Jr., Kate, Mary, Henry, Edward, and Dora.

A Historical Fiction, Social Criticism type book, it can be compared to a great many other books. As a Historical Fiction, it can be and is compared to literally millions of other books. There are centuries of history recorded, studied, and written about, now and long ago, as well as in the future. Social Criticism, I’m not so sure about. Plenty of books go into this category, I’m sure, but I wouldn’t know which to name. I’m quite positive that every book has some form of social criticism contained within. Every single one. People are not capable of living without contempt towards some people, ideas, beliefs, doings… It’s impossible. You cannot like everything.

A Tale Of Two Cities is a third person narration, as in an unknown character who seems to know all and see all, using words like they, them, she, he, him, etc. The theme is the ‘ever-present possibility of resurrection’ and the ‘necessity of sacrifice’. (spark notes) Dickens inserts his belief that in resurrection, rebirth, whatever you wish to call it, that we may be redone to be better, both on a personal and societal level. He seems to believe that sacrifice is necessary to achieve happiness.

The book deals with light and dark, good and bad, rich and poor… multiple contradictions that work together to seam into a beautiful story. “It was the best of times, It was the worst of times…”

It even starts with a contradiction. Two cities… a contradiction.

In 1775, one Mr. Jarvis Lorry, a Tellsons Bank official. He accompanies Lucy Manette to Paris on word that her father, who has been missing for the past 18 years, is alive. He had been unjustifiably imprisoned in the Bastille; he now lives under the care of the wine-maker Monsieur Defarge. Dr. Manette has aged quite terribly, suffering severe memory loss and spending his time making shoes in a dark room. They gather up Dr. Manette and his things, and head back to London where Lucie shall bring his health back to par. Five years later, a young Frenchman named Charles Darnay is accused of being a traitorous spy. Lucie and Dr. Manette are witnesses in his trial, as they had met him whilst traveling. They argue that he is innocent, but there is much evidence to the contrary and it is believed that he will receive the death penalty, until a proponent in the courtroom named Sydney Carton points out the similarities between himself and the accused, and the jury realizes this might be a case of mistaken identity. Darnay is pardoned. As the years pass, both Darnay and Carton fall in love with Lucie. Lucie wants nothing to with Carton, at least not in that sense, and she marries Darnay. Darnay is a French aristocrat, who has disowned his family and inheritance and now lives in London under a false name working as a tutor. His uncle is the Marquis St. Evermonde, who is known for his cruelty. Now, fast forward. Charles and Lucie have been married eleven years, and have a young daughter. Charles hears that his lackey back in France has been wrongly arrested, he sneaks back into the country to try to save him, but he is arrested as well, as he is from an aristocratic family. Lucie hears of his capture, and her, her father, their daughter, and Mr. Lorry all travel to France to retrieve him. Dr. Manette, who is well respected in France, convinces the people of his son-in-laws innocence, and Darnay is released. However, Madame Defarge has a personal vendetta against Darnay, as his uncle, the Marquis, committed multiple wrongs to her family. She causes Charles to become arrested once more, and he is sentenced to death. The story ends in a surprising twist, but I shan’t tell you that, as it’d ruin the story.

I quite enjoyed this book, although it was a bit hard to follow. Dickens was writing it for a paper (it was published in 31 installments), and he strung it out, being redundant and such, as he got paid by word. I really did like it though. It’s like a sick pleasure with me… I love the madness and the drama.

Baroness Emma Magdolna Rozália Mária Jozefa Borbála “Emmuska” Orczy de Orci, aka Baroness Emma Orczy, was a Hungarian born British novelist, artist, and playwright of a fairly noble origin. She was born on September 23^rd, 1865, was married to Montagu Barstow, had a son named John, and died on November 12^th, 1947. She wrote about forty books, many of which included the Scarlet Pimpernel.

The Scarlet Pimpernel is a Historical Fiction, as well as an adventure book. Historical Fictions, like I said, can be compared to soooo many other Historical Fictions that it’s ridiculous. The same can be said for adventure stories.

A third person narrative, told by an unseen character, who just knows everything that’s going on. Theme-wise, this book is about ‘guilt vs. redemption’, ‘loyalty’, and ‘disguise’. Lady Blakeney knows her husband despises her because he thinks she convicted the St. Cyrs to die savagely, when in fact she feels quite guilty about it and she becomes determined to redeem herself and atone for her sins so he might love her once again. Percy feels guilty about not revealing his identity as the Scarlet Pimpernel to his wife, although not enough to confess it even when she confesses her guilt about the Cyr accident. Again, she feels guilt as to whether she should save her brother Armand, or the Scarlet Pimpernel, whom she considers noble and just. But when it is revealed that the Pimpernel is her husband… She has to deal with enormous amounts of guilt no matter which way she chooses. Disguise… The Scarlet Pimpernel relies on disguise heavily as he would be executed is he were simply arrested. He dresses as peasants, old Jews.. anything that might be a part of the anti-aristocrat movement, so that he might save innocent nobles from death.

This story takes place during the French Revolution, when the ‘common-folk’ of France condemned their leaders to death for being unjust to them. An Englishman, called the Scarlet Pimpernel, feels he must save these nobles, and he helps them to escape the country to safety in England. He is known as the Scarlet Pimpernel because upon escaping the French soldiers and guards, he would leave a note describing the escapade, signing it with a small red flower which the English called the Scarlet Pimpernel. French soldiers increase in numbers at the Paris gates, as the number of French aristocrats that have escaped have increased as well. One of the most popular things in France at this time is the guillotine. Huge crowds are drawn to watch the executions of French nobles. Now, as so many aristocrats are escaping, a decree is made stating that any soldiers who let nobles pass will be beheaded as well. One guard, Sergeant Bibot, is famous for his ability to catch any aristocrat, no matter how great of a disguise they have.

Lady Blakeney is a French woman married to an Englishman, and she is approached by a French agent in need of her help discovering who the Scarlet Pimpernel really is. At first she refuses. But she then learns that her brother is involved with helping the Pimpernel, and that he may be arrested and executed for his crimes against France. She agrees to help capture the Pimpernel in exchange for her brother’s safe return to England. When she learns the true identity of The Scarlet Pimpernel, she is forced to choose between her brother and the man she loves.

The Scarlet Pimpernel is a book that plays with emotions, politics, romance, action, and conspiracy, twisting into an intricate web of complexities. I found it to be a good story, written quite well and fast paced without rushing things to much.

Both stories deal with the French Revolution, although different aspects of it, told from different perspectives with different ideals. Our main characters from both stories believe that the aristocrats should have a chance for freedom, as they aren’t all bad people and deserve a chance to live. One is told from the perspective of those who are emotionally involved with one charged, and their fight to save him. The other from the point of view of one who is simply sympathetic, but has the power to get them out.

Personally, I like A Tale Of Two Cities better. I thinks it’s more romantic and grabbed me more emotionally. I like the fact that its one of those stories where you have to read parts over again to get it, and like I said I like the madness that plagues them. Nothing against The Scarlet Pimpernel, it is well written and complex and all that, but I’d recommend the Dickens book over it, no doubt.

A Tale Of Two Cities deals with the more mental and emotional aspects of what was going on at the time. While The Scarlet Pimpernel deals with these subjects too, its not as obvious and I think its more political than anything. Both well written stories by great authors, both about the French Revolution, both amazing in their own way. Many similarities and differences, much to compare and much to read deeper into.

G.A. Henty

George Alfred Henty (AKA G.A. Henty) was a demiurgic and innovative writer, his novels and short stories stimulating. He was born at Trumpington, UK (A village on the outskirts of Cambridge) in 1832. He attended the Westminster School, and then College in Cambridge, where he studied classics. When the Crimean War began in 1854, Henty and his brother joined the British Army, though his brother died of cholera while they were in service.

Henty would send letters of his adventures in the war home, where a newspaper would publish them, though he wasn’t set upon becoming an author at the time. Instead he continued his service in the war, until he decided to resign his commission, afterwhich he got a job assisting his father in running mines. His heart wasn’t in this, and he decided to become a bona-fide writer.

He was married to a woman named Elizabeth Finucane, with whom he had four children. (Unfortunately, Elizabeth and their two daughters died of tuberculosis)

In 1868, he wrote his first childrens book, titled “Out On The Pampas.” He named the main characters after his children, Charley, Hubert, Maud, and Ethel. I suppose he based the wife in the story off of his own, who had died a few years previous, which must’ve been a sort of remembrance of her, and quite painful for him.

G.A. Henty wrote some 120 other books, the majority of which were historical fiction, although some were non-fiction as well. Some of these works are: “Held Fast For England”, “In Greek Waters”, “Through The Fray”, “The Lion Of The North”, and “Wulf The Saxon.”

While he was, without a doubt, a great author, he was quite racist and prejudicial. “By Sheer Pluck: A Tale of the Ashanti War” and “A Roving Commission, or, Through the Black Insurrection at Hayti” are examples of novels which display this. Here is a quote from “By Sheer Luck: A Tale of the Ashanti War” :

“They [negroes] are just like children … They are always either laughing or quarrelling. They are good-natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond. The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. … They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed. They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative faculties enable them to attain a considerable amount of civilization. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery”

He believed any person who was not a British white was inferior, more like an annoying thing that must be dealt with before they become more ‘savage’ and ‘destructive’.

According to multiple journalists, his racism is often ignored by Christians, made to look more like patriotism or something of that sort. He is considered a great role-model for male children, (Which I find slightly irritating, as females are just as capable as males and that sort of medieval thinking makes me want to break things :D) because of his courage and pluck in the war, his manliness, and how he strived to become more studious afterwards.

G.A. Henty is indubitably a great author, -even with his superior attitude- with intriguing, adventurous stories that still captivate young minds today.

James Monroe

Born on April 28, 1758, in Westmoreland County, Virginia, the famous James Monroe accomplished many great things in his life. He crossed the Delaware with George Washington and studied under Thomas Jefferson. He was the 5^th President and the last Founding Father.

Born to Spence Monroe and Elizabeth Jones Monroe in Westmoreland County, Virginia in 1758, James was the last President in the “Virginia Dynasty” (which was named so because 4 out of the first 5 Presidents were born in Virginia.) Spence was a Scottish planter and carpenter, and Elizabeth a well-educated woman for their time, but nevertheless a housewife. She tutored James at home for a while, then in 1769 to 1774 he went to Campbelltown Academy.

After his father’s death in 1774, James enrolled at Virginia’s College of William and Mary, intending to study law, but dropped out a few months in to fight in the American Revolution. He joined the Continental Army, became an officer in 1776, and fought under George Washington in the Battle of Trenton, where he was severely injured.

After the war, James studied law with Thomas Jefferson. In 1782, he was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates, and from 1783 to 1786 he was a member of the Continental Congress, who were then meeting in New York. While there, he met Elizabeth Kortright. They married on February 16^th, 1786.

He left to practice law, and eventually became a Senator, from 1790 to 1794. Afterwards, he was sent to France as a minister until Washington summoned him back to the States. He was elected governor of Virginia, 1799-1801, and again in 1811. He negotiated the Louisiana purchase in 1803. James Monroe accomplished many things in his career before 1816.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were both backing James Monroe up in the Presidential election of 1816. Rufus King was the other candidate, from the federalist party, who had very little support. Monroe won, with 183 out of 217 votes cast.

He was re-elected in 1820, although he had no opponent, so there really was no campaign. He received all the votes, except one cast by William Plumber for John Quincy Adams.

The time during Monroe’s Presidency was called “The Era of Good Feelings.” The federalist party played hardly any part in either election, so no partisan politics really existed.

While in office, Monroe had to deal with many things, such as our countries first depression. At the time called a Panic, it began in 1819 and lasted until 1821. Monroe made moves to try and ease this Panic.

The two biggest developments that happened during his Presidency were The Missouri Compromise and the Monroe Doctrine. The Missouri Compromise was issued in 1820, and it stated that Missouri was a slave state, and that Maine was a free state. It also states that the rest of the Louisiana Purchase above Lat. 36 degrees and 30 minutes was free territory. The Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1823,which stated that America would from then on be freed from all foreign interference in the countries affairs. Europeans weren’t allowed to colonize anywhere in the new world, and any other interference would be considered a hostile act upon the States.

After his Presidency, Monroe retired to Oak Hill, Virginia. When his wife died, he moved to New York City. He died on July 4^th, 1831.

Is it better to care deeply about something or to remain emotionally detached?

I believe that caring deeply about something is the key to doing it well. If you’re truly passionate about it, then you will do great things with it, no matter what. Great scientists devoted all their time to making new discoveries and making things. They sacrificed things and sometimes even put their health in jeopardy. Why wouldn’t emotional attachment to what you’re doing or working on be the best way to make even more worthwhile?

You might argue that being emotionally involved in your work clouds your judgment, but I don’t think it does. It might cloud your judgment as to other things-you might forget to eat or something- but not your judgment as to what your focus is upon. It becomes your baby. You coddle it. Nights become sleepless because you’re tending to every thing that might need to be done. While everything else in your life might become hazy, your project is a clear spot.

Emotional detachment from your work means it’s not a top priority. You might say that it isn’t a top priority, that there are many things more important. Air, for example. There is no shortage of air, don’t worry about that. Water and food, on the other hand, are something to worry about a tad. I’m quite sure that only a complete imbecile would totally forgo food and water, anyways. Everyone knows you need it. Besides, you’d pass out from lack of either, so it’d be important to anyone who actually wishes to work at what they do.

Also, I don’t think that you really care about the work if there isn’t any emotion in it. You can’t be totally emotionally detached from it and make any progress. If it doesn’t mean anything to you, then that’s just it. You don’t care about it. It. Can’t. Be. Important. If. You. Have. No. Emotion. Towards. It. I can’t make this point strong enough.

As I said, you have to have at least a little emotional attachment to it, otherwise it’s just some hoo hah that you’re forced to do. The great discoveries of this world were made by people who put their heart and soul into what they were doing. (I am aware that there are exceptions…) I shall leave you with this:

“Nobody cares how much you know, until they know how much you care.” – Theodore Roosevelt