The Gold Rush

During the California Gold Rush, miners extracted more than seven hundred fifty thousand pounds of gold. That’s about twelve million ounces, and currently an ounce is about one thousand two hundred sixty USD, which, if my math is right, means that the gold from the Gold Rush is worth $15,120,000,00. Yeah, soak that in.

The whole thing starts in January, on the 24^th of the year 1848. Close to what is now Coloma, CA, John Sutter had hired men to construct a saw mill. One man, James Marshall, noticed gold bits in the runoff water. He immediately told Sutter, and they swore an oath of secrecy.

In spite of this promise, news of the gold got out. The first to arrive were those from San Francisco (Thanks to one Samuel Brannon parading the streets with a jar of gold from Sutter’s Creek), Oregon, and Hawaii(then known as the Sandwich Islands). While it did take a while (NO INTERNET) to get to the East, it did. Eventually. The New York Herald published an article on the discovery in August. The story became so large that President James Polk announced the positive results of a report by Colonel Richard Mason in his inaugural address, causing the knowledge of the gold to spread to practically everyone.

Now, it’s 1849. Tens of thousands of 49ers (as in the year they set out) left for California, borrowing money and mortgaging their properties to pay for the journey. Migrants from ’49 numbered close to eighty thousand.

At first, gold was found real easy like. Nuggets could be found practically anywhere you stepped, if you sifted through a few inches of dirt. Panning in streams and creek-beds was a preferred method, as the gold would drift along in the current and basically come to you.

Many mining towns popped up in California, filled with stores carrying mining equipment, provisions, ropes, picks, shovels… Anything that might have been needed. Many schools, churches, and stores started to show up. Bars, hotels, warehouses and such things would be built around mining areas. Business was good.

Now, the amount of gold has started dwindling. It’s harder and harder to find. New prospectors are still showing up. They have to work harder, longer hours to acquire as much gold as they had been before, but even so, what they were finding was greatly decreased form what it had been at the start. Needing places to settle, many miners displaced, or even killed, many Native Americans. Many spent much money in the hopes of becoming rich off gold, but never found any, and drifted off into debt or poverty.

As The Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo (which officially ended the war) didn’t go into effect until Feb 2^nd, after the gold was discovered, technically for a bit it was legally Mexico’s property. After, the area was under control of the US Military, although no troops ever actually walked the gold fields. The areas were self policed, meaning any rules might as well have been crap. Violent, drunken bandit men assaulted many, stole from many, and killed many.

Gold mining reached peak in 1852, when close to $81mil was mined. Afterwards was when the decline began. Many ex-miners, still miners, farmers, and other such people continued settling the area. By 1860, the population was about 380,000 people.

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.

Arronax vs. Nemo

Who remembers reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea? Wasn’t a great book? If you haven’t read it, or you need a recap, here we go: Professor Aronnax, his manservant Conseil, and a Canadian harpooner named Ned Land are aboard a ship called the Abraham Lincoln, chasing a “giant norwhale” that has been terrorizing ships across the globe. As they attack this monster, it attacks back, causing our three friends to be thrown overboard. Captain Nemo of the Nautilus takes them in, feeds them and shows them wonders under the sea that no other man has seen before. It’s a wonderful story, with wonderful characters, two of which I will be comparing.

Professor Aronnax specializes in natural history, marine animals especially. He had written a book titled The Mysteries of the Great Ocean Depths, which established him as an expert, which is why he was called upon for his opinions on what was attacking ships.

He was curious, and believed that man didn’t know what lay past ten miles below the surface. He was sure that there were creatures they’d never seen, and might not ever see. He was excited to come along on the Abraham Lincoln looking for this creature.

Captain Nemo is a man filled with hatred. You can tell from the way he acts. Something horrible happened to him, and he seeks revenge. Not the eye for an eye sort, though. He has made himself a fortress, surrounded only by few that he had chosen. He can get everything he needs and more from the sea, and he’s proud of the fact. He has spent years bettering his mind and learning new languages and discovering things, and it all falls into a grand master plan to get back at the surface world for wronging him so horrendously.

Both characters have an immense love for the sea, and all that can be learned, discovered, and made from it. They find it fascinating. Each has great knowledge of marine life, and each yearns to know all the secrets that the sea keeps. Each would spend days reading from Captain Nemo’s library if they could. If they had years to, they would collect shells and organisms to study and admire. Both want to immerse themselves in knowledge, and both have great love for the seaweed forests. Both are also stubborn and want their way, and I doubt I either could go a day without a bombardment of questions, although Captain Nemo seems to have answered many for himself before having met Professor Aronnax.

Their differences are mainly in personality traits. While they do have similar interests and such, Nemo seems to be a bit more aggressive. He’s very secretive with things, and spends days at a time locked up in his room. He has cold eyes and has seen death, and is a bit of a prick. Professor Aronnax, on the other hand, spends all the days Nemo doesn’t have him locked up out looking around, and he expects answers to his questions. He’s baffled by Nemo’s secretiveness. He’s inquisitive and wants to know all the sea’s secrets, but he wants to go back to land, while Nemo has sworn never to step foot upon the surface world again. Aronnax gets sick of eating fish daily, and craves land-meat. Aronnax is also a much, much nicer person than Nemo. They are practically polar opposites personality-wise, and don’t actually like each other that much. Nemo refuses to let them leave because NO ONE can know of his ship, and he thinks of Arronax as a burden. Arronax can’t stand imprisonment.

While they both are very curious and love the sea very much, Nemo thinks of it as his home, while Aronnax craves to be back on land like smokers crave nicotine. I think the characters are amazing and fit together so well and are like compliments to each other, even if they find each other disagreeable.

Does working with others lead to better results than acting as an individual?

Working alone allows the you to leak out. You don’t worry as much about what others think, so you express yourself more freely. Restrictions on the imagination fade away, and you want to create something more.

In a group situation, you’re more likely to just ‘go with the flow’ and not voice your opinion. The ‘Flow’ might not be the best route to go along though, as it might just be a vague, generalized stereotype-ish idea. You’re going to mess around with your friends in the group, and you won’t be as efficient.

It’s different if you don’t know the people in the group. If it was a random pairing then you won’t know each other well and will be uncomfortable and scared to share your ideas because you’re scared of ridicule.

I think that if there’s only two people in the group, I think you have an advantage. If you guys are comfortable around each other, and you both want to succeed, then you will excel greatly. If you guys can mess around just a bit, work together well, throw out every idea that pops into your head, and encourage each other, then you’ll be virtually unstoppable.

I’m not the best at having a definite answer to these questions. I think I argue both sides and then kind of lean towards one a bit more. On this, I have to go with working alone. I mean… You are YOU, your mind has the ability to see things different from all others and if you’re by yourself then you don’t have people holding you back. You have to break all your boundaries, stop worrying what anyone else says, and spit your ideas out onto paper. Gag them and spew them everywhere. You’re unique. You can do it all.

BUT don’t forget everyone else. You DO need support and a hug never hurts, just know you can do it yourself and that you don’t need to immobilize someone else with everything you’re trying to do. They have their own stuff. Accomplish your own things, and they’ll accomplish theirs. 😀

Should we complain to get what we want?

Pessimists tend to live longer because they’re disappointed less. 😀

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Should we complain to get what we want? Does it get us what we want faster? Does it make getting it easier? Does it create a sense of understanding with people around you? Can it make you feel better? Does it make you a better person? Does it make you annoying?

I believe it’s a natural thing to complain. Go on ahead and try not to, it will cause you so much mental strain that you’ll get a migraine. You cannot live life without complaining, as there is so much to complain about, there is so much wrong with this world, and the minds of many are twisted so we have sick views of things, making it worse.

Can you get what you want faster when you complain? It’s quite possible if you’re annoying enough and people want to shut you up. You most likely won’t get what you envisioned, and you’ll be disappointed with it, resulting in more complaining. Does it make getting what we want easier? Sure, if you’re cool with it not living up to your expectations and with people being severely irritated with you.

There is a fine line between complaining a reasonable amount and complaining so much that people would love to slap you. If you so it reasonably, then I think that it DOES create a sense of understanding with those around you. Many people have similar problems, and can relate to you greatly. The thing is, there’s only so much people can do about YOUR problems. (This is why you might be disappointed after receiving what you want after complaining- nobody thinks what you think, so it won’t be exactly what you want) DO something about your problems, don’t expect other people to fix them for you.

Can it make you feel better? Yes, to an extent. People literally make a living listening to other people talk about their problems and then giving them their two cents. Venting is therapy, and getting it out is like dropping a big bag of bricks you’ve been carrying on your back.

As to complaining making you a better person, I think the answer is yes, but only in some cases. Technically, it’s not complaining, but it counts. Take hunger activists as an example. They are “complaining” about something very important to bring attention to it. They are making a difference, and making the world a better place by calling attention to those in need. They “complain” for a good cause.

Yes, complaining can make you very annoying. There is no doubt there. Let’s say your ENTIRE social media page is, “OMG I’m so lonely”, “Wish I had friends”, “Wish someone liked me”, and all that jazz. Shut up, go out in public and don’t be a jerk to people. Somebody will like you.

Complaining can get you what you want, give you what you don’t want, make people dislike you, can call attention to important matters, and many other things. Don’t complain to much, but speak what’s on your mind, & live life to the fullest.

The Life of Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte is considered to be one of the great leaders of all time. He was a very important French military commander, and he waged many successful wars. He played a large role in the development of many countries besides France, and was disliked by a good amount of people for some of things he had done.

Napoleon was born in Ajjacio, Corsica on August 15th, 1769. Corsica is in Italy, which makes Napoleon Italian, but as France owned the land, he is born a French citizen.

On May 17th, 1779 Napoleon begins studying at the Royal Military School in Brienne. On October 17th, 1784, he enrolls in Ecole Militaire, and a little over a year later on Oct. 28 of 85 he graduates as a second lieutenant in the artillery.

In June of 1793, the Bonaparte family is forced to leave their home on the island of Corsica, accused of being to “pro-French”. They flee to France, where Napoleon focuses once more on his military career. December of that same year, he is named Brigadier General for his courage at the battle of Toulon.

After The Reign of Terror in 1794, Napoleon was imprisoned for eleven days, charged with being a Jacobin supporter, but he was released because there was no evidence to prove the accusation. Now, under the power of the recently established Directory, Napoleon was appointed General of the Army of the West.

From 1796 to 1799, Napoleon had a streak of very successful military campaigns and won many battles, such as The Battle of Lodi, The Battle of Arcole, & The Battle of Rivoli. He returns to Paris in 1799, having heard rumors of unrest in the city.

The Directory has become very unpopular, and Napoleon pressures them to resign. He writes a new French Constitution and holds an election for the Emperor of France. With nobody to oppose him, he was elected Emperor with an impossible statistic of a 99% approval rate. He military career continued to skyrocket, and he fixed the French relationship with the Roman Catholic church.

He was constantly on the move as an Emperor, with all his campaigns being successful, winning all battles he encountered. This went on for 15 years, until 1814, when Napoleon was in deep debt from paying for all his expensive battles, and the French people were just tired of constant war. Finally, the Senate declared the end of the Empire.

Napoleon was exiled to the island of Elba, Louis XVIII was reinstated as king, and his wife and son left to Vienna. He escaped from Elba later on in 1814, returning to France and rallying troops. He is defeated in the Battle of Waterloo by the British & Prussian armies, who were led by Duke Wellington.

He is once more exiled, this time to St. Helena, where he dies on March 5th, 1821. Napoleon’s great success in stabilizing and expanding France ended the French Revolution. Although he died on an isolated island, exiled by his own people, he is remembered as one of France’s great leaders.

Is it true that when we most need advice we are least willing to listen to it? Or is good advice always welcome?

Is it true that when we most need advice we are least willing to listen to it? Or is good advice always welcome? This depends on the individual person, as some people accept advice more readily, but I think the former is truer than the latter.

When people need advice, more often than not they are in emotional distress. They may feel like actually doing something about it is to difficult or heartbreaking, so they just ignore all advice. Or they may take your advice as criticism and block you and your advice out.

When someone most needs advice, they have run out of feasible solutions. They can’t seem to fix their problem, and any chance of it getting better is impossible. Giving them advice at this point in time is like asking them to jab a puppy in the eye. Quite possible, but gut-wrenching and heart-breaking, and it makes them want to throw up and they are absolutely certain they can’t do that.

Misery loves company. That basically sums it up. When we have a problem, we want someone to listen and sympathize. We don’t really want them to fix the problem right at first. It comes off like a lack of sympathy, like “If you’d just listen to me and do this/that you wouldn’t have this problem and I wouldn’t have to listen to you crying like a baby.”

“Advice is a dangerous gift, even from the wise to the wise, and all courses may run ill.” ― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring. Truly wise people are rare, and there is much debate as to who they are, so advice tends to be disastrous even if the giver had good intentions. If advice is good, it is always welcome, but it is hard to know what really IS good advice, so beware.

>I Love the internet cx You can find quotes for EVERYTHING.!<

Is it true that acting quickly and instinctively is the best response to a crisis? Or are there times when an urgent situation requires a more careful consideration and a slower response?

-…I actually think this is kind of crappy… I might have to rewrite it but I don’t feel like it and I need to go anyways-

Is it true that acting quickly and instinctively is the best response to a crisis, or are there times when an urgent situation requires a more careful consideration and a slower response?

Now days, most people prefer people who think things through, who foresee the consequences and find the best solution with deliberate thought and the mapping out of actions. Spontaneity is something amazing that all people should strive for, but it is under appreciated by people when the situation is perilous, as they think it is best to think things through and look at previous events that were similar to find the probable best solution. They don’t remember when all a person had was their instincts, back when historical information wasn’t readily available and the only course of action was to do what they thought was best.

Military commanders and generals tend to plan and map out their attacks and plans of action. If they were impulsive, they would often make rash decisions. For example, if the persons flight-or-fight response is to fight, they might attack people who might’ve become allies had they not. If it is to flee, then they can easily be overcome by the enemy. Out in the field, they must make on-the-spot decisions, and this is where many mistakes are made. They can’t see the big picture, they don’t know what all is happening, and they may make the wrong decision.
Firefighters, on the other hand, must act on instinct. They don’t have time to think about what they’re doing, not when peoples lives are in danger. Even if they are the type of person to think about things, they often don’t have that choice.

While most of the time it’s probably best to think about things, to make sure what we’re doing is really the best thing, spontaneous, instinctual action is a great ability that we should all be grateful to have. While we may not put it to use in every situation, we should still take our initial response into consideration when debating with yourself about what to do.

Do we learn more from finding out that we have made mistakes or from our successful actions?

Do we learn more from our mistakes or from our success? I believe from our mistakes, because when we mess up, we want to fix it and make it better, and then later on we know not to mess up like that again.

We don’t necessarily learn immediately after we make the mistake. We have to take time to think about it. Just like if you were to run a marathon and win, you wouldn’t even totally grasp what’s happening until after you caught your breath.

But… How are we to know we are truly making a mistake? We only have one life, so how do we know what is actually the right thing to want or to do if we can’t do it all to see what turns out the best? You can’t simply trust the others opinions on the matter, because they aren’t you. You most likely couldn’t make an accurate guess as to what you would do yourself, because you haven’t done it yet. You might react completely different than you think you would, most likely because we have a warped image of ourselves in our mind that isn’t really us at all.

How are you to tell whether or not the mistake has made you smarter, or a better person? Some people are complete idiots who make the same mistake over and over, but never learn. Maybe the failure make you bitter. Besides, who can say what makes a good person? We, as people, have a right to do whatever we like (outside of adultery and murder, because that is flipping terrible).

But, I do think that we can make ourselves what we consider to be better if we ‘learn’ from our mistakes. It’s really all in our head. =D