From SpaceNews: PredaSAR to send 48 satellites into initial radar constellation

Building off a story below: 

- Click here for the link. 

PredaSAR Corp., a Terran Orbital company, plans to deploy an initial constellation of 48 radar satellites with the goal of offering customers the ability to obtain updated views of sites on the ground within minutes.

PredaSAR’s first two satellites, in what the firm says will be the world’s largest Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) constellation, are “under construction” at Tyvak Nano-Satellite Systems, another Terran Orbital company, Marc Bell, Terran Orbital chairman and co-founder, told SpaceNews.

PredaSAR is in negotiations with U.S. launch vehicle providers to begin sending satellite into orbit in early 2021, said Bell, PredaSAR co-founder and executive chairman.

PredaSAR, founded in 2019, is the latest entrant in the race to deploy constellations of small SAR satellites to serve government and commercial customers. The Florida startup, led by retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Roger Teague, raised $25 million in a seed funding investment round announced in March.

Although PredaSAR has not said anything about the size of its satellites, Bell said, they will be larger than the satellites its competitors are building and flying. With larger satellites, PredaSAR’s constellation will offer “more power, more sensors, higher resolution and more bandwidth,” Bell said.

For more on Synthetic Aperture Radar: 

Synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) is a form of radar that is used to create two-dimensional images or three-dimensional reconstructions of objects, such as landscapes. SAR uses the motion of the radar antenna over a target region to provide finer spatial resolution than conventional beam-scanning radars. SAR is typically mounted on a moving platform, such as an aircraft or spacecraft, and has its origins in an advanced form of side looking airborne radar (SLAR). The distance the SAR device travels over a target in the time taken for the radar pulses to return to the antenna creates the large synthetic antenna aperture (the size of the antenna). Typically, the larger the aperture, the higher the image resolution will be, regardless of whether the aperture is physical (a large antenna) or synthetic (a moving antenna) – this allows SAR to create high-resolution images with comparatively small physical antennas. Additionally, SAR has the property of having larger apertures for more distant objects, allowing consistent spatial resolution over a range of viewing distances.

From Wikipedia: The U.S. Armies Signal Corps

A key promoter of communications technology.

- Click here for the link. 

Overview: 

The United States Army Signal Corps (USASC) is a branch of the United States Army that creates and manages communications and information systems for the command and control of combined arms forces. It was established in 1860, the brainchild of Major Albert J. Myer, and had an important role in the American Civil War. Over its history, it had the initial responsibility for portfolios and new technologies that were eventually transferred to other U.S. government entities. Such responsibilities included military intelligence, weather forecasting, and aviation.

History: 

While serving as a medical officer in Texas in 1856, Albert James Myer proposed that the Army use his visual communications system, called aerial telegraphy (or "wig-wag"). When the Army adopted his system on 21 June 1860, the Signal Corps was born with Myer as the first and only Signal Officer.

Major Myer first used his visual signaling system on active service in New Mexico during the early 1860s Navajo expedition. Using flags for daytime signaling and a torch at night, wigwag was tested in Civil War combat in June 1861 to direct the fire of a harbor battery at Fort Wool against the Confederate positions opposite Fort Monroe. For nearly three years, Myer was forced to rely on detailed personnel, although he envisioned a separate, trained professional military signal service.

Myer's vision came true on 3 March 1863, when Congress authorized a regular Signal Corps for the duration of the war. Some 2,900 officers and enlisted men served, although not at any single time, in the Civil War Signal Corps.

Myer's Civil War innovations included an unsuccessful balloon experiment at First Bull Run, and, in response to McClellan's desire for a Signal Corps field telegraph train, an electric telegraph in the form of the Beardslee magnetoelectric telegraph machine. Even in the Civil War, the wigwag system, restricted to line-of-sight communications, was waning in the face of the electric telegraph.

Initially, Myer used his office downtown in Washington, D.C. to house the Signal Corps School. When it was found to need additional space, he sought out other locations. First came Fort Greble, one of the Defenses of Washington during the Civil War, and when that proved inadequate, Myer chose Fort Whipple, on Arlington Heights overlooking the national capital. The size and location were outstanding. The school remained there for over 20 years and ultimately was renamed Fort Myer.

Signal Corps detachments participated in campaigns fighting Native Americans in the west, such as the Powder River Expedition of 1865.

The electric telegraph, in addition to visual signaling, became a Signal Corps responsibility in 1867. Within 12 years, the corps had constructed, and was maintaining and operating, some 4,000 miles of telegraph lines along the country's western frontier.

In 1870, the Signal Corps established a congressionally mandated national weather service. Within a decade, with the assistance of Lieutenant Adolphus Greely, Myer commanded a weather service of international acclaim. Myer died in 1880, having attained the rank of brigadier general and the title of Chief Signal Officer. The weather bureau became part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1891, while the corps retained responsibility for military meteorology.

The Signal Corps' role in the Spanish–American War of 1898 and the subsequent Philippine Insurrection was on a grander scale than it had been in the Civil War. In addition to visual signaling, including heliograph, the corps supplied telephone and telegraph wire lines and cable communications, fostered the use of telephones in combat, employed combat photography, and renewed the use of balloons. Shortly after the war, the Signal Corps constructed the Washington-Alaska Military Cable and Telegraph System (WAMCATS), also known as the Alaska Communications System (ACS), introducing the first wireless telegraph in the Western Hemisphere.

. . . A pioneer in radar, Colonel William Blair, director of the Signal Corps laboratories at Fort Monmouth, patented the first Army radar demonstrated in May 1937. Even before the United States entered World War II, mass production of two radar sets, the SCR-268 and the SCR-270, had begun. Along with the Signal Corps' tactical FM radio, also developed in the 1930s, radar was the most important communications development of World War II.

Government Contracts for the Wright Brothers

- From Wikipedia: 

The Wright brothers made no flights at all in 1906 and 1907. They spent the time attempting to persuade the U.S. and European governments that they had invented a successful flying machine and were prepared to negotiate a contract to sell such machines. They also experimented with a pontoon and engine setup on the Miami River (Ohio) in hopes of flying from the water. These experiments proved unsuccessful.

The modified 1905 Flyer at the Kill Devil Hills in 1908, ready for practice flights. Note there is no catapult derrick; all takeoffs were used with the monorail alone.

Replying to the Wrights' letters, the U.S. military expressed virtually no interest in their claims. The brothers turned their attention to Europe, especially France, where enthusiasm for aviation ran high, and journeyed there for the first time in 1907 for face-to-face talks with government officials and businessmen. They also met with aviation representatives in Germany and Britain. Before traveling, Orville shipped a newly built Model A Flyer to France in anticipation of demonstration flights.

Soaring flight, Kitty Hawk, Oct. 1911 "Arrows indicate 50-Mile Wind, Showing How Machine Was Sustained in a Stationary Position"

In France Wilbur met Frank P. Lahm, a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Aeronautical Division. Writing to his superiors, Lahm smoothed the way for Wilbur to give an in-person presentation to the U.S. Board of Ordnance and Fortification in Washington, D.C. when he returned to the U.S. This time, the Board was favorably impressed, in contrast to its previous indifference. With further input from the Wrights, the U.S. Army Signal Corps issued Specification #486 in December 1907, inviting bids for construction of a flying machine under military contract. The Wrights submitted their bid in January. In early 1908 the brothers also agreed to a contract with a French company. In May they went back to Kitty Hawk with their 1905 Flyer to practice in private for their all-important public demonstration flights, as required by both contracts. Their privacy was lost when New York newspapers heard about the tests and sent several reporters to the scene.

Their contracts required them to fly with a passenger, so they modified the 1905 Flyer by installing two seats and adding upright control levers. After tests with sandbags in the passenger seat, Charlie Furnas, a helper from Dayton, became the first fixed-wing aircraft passenger on a few short flights May 14, 1908.

The First Airport in the US: College Park Airport

 - From Wikipedia: 

College Park Airport was established in August 1909 by the United States Army Signal Corps to serve as a training location for Wilbur Wright to instruct two military officers to fly in the government's first airplane. Leased on August 25, the first airplane, a Wright Type A biplane, was uncrated and assembled on October 7. Civilian aircraft began flying from College Park Airport as early as December 1911, making it the world's oldest continuously operated airport.[3] In 1977, the airport was added to the National Register of Historic Places.[1][4]

College Park Airport is home to many "firsts" in aviation, and is particularly significant for the well-known aviators and aviation inventors who played a part in this field's long history. In 1909 Wilbur Wright taught Lieutenants Frederic Humphreys and Frank Lahm. Humphreys became the first military pilot to solo in a government airplane. The same year on October 27, Mrs. Ralph Henry Van Deman was flown by Wilbur Wright to become the first woman to fly in a powered aircraft in the United States.

. . . In 1911, the nation's first military aviation school was opened at College Park, with newly trained pilots then-Lt. Henry H. Arnold and Lt. Thomas DeWitt Milling as Wright pilot instructors and Capt. Paul W. Beck as the Curtiss instructor. William Starling Burgess also brought a licensed Wright Model B named the Burgess Model F.[8] The military aviation school saw numerous aviation firsts. Shortly following the cancellation of an international air meet at the airport in the fall of 1912, all aviators on the field participated in a demonstration for the International Congress of Hygiene participants.

. . . In 1918, after a three-month trial with the War Department beginning May 15, the Post Office Department inaugurated the first Postal Airmail Service from College Park, serving Philadelphia and New York City (Belmont Park). Flights from College Park continued until 1921. The compass rose and original airmail hangar remain at the modern airport as a witness to this history. The airport code "CGS" originally referred to the airport's purpose in the 1930s as an airmail station (CGS = ColleGe Station).

In 1920, Emile and Henry Berliner (father and son) brought their theories of vertical flight to the field and in 1924 made the first controlled helicopter flight.

From 1927 until 1933, the Bureau of Standards developed and tested the first radio navigational aids for use in "blind" or bad weather flying. This was the forerunner of the modern Instrument Landing System used today by aircraft.

In 1937 the Engineering & Research Corporation (ERCO), based across the street (Good Luck Rd, now Campus Drive) in nearby Riverdale, Maryland, used the airport to test fly the early model of the Ercoupe, an airplane designed to be spin-proof.

From Wikipedia: Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

 For both 2305 and 2306. This fits our look at federalism, civil liberties, and criminal justice.

- Click here for the entry.

Here are a couple: 

Guarantee of freedom of assembly
- This provision has been incorporated against the states. See DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937).

Warrant requirements
- The various warrant requirements have been incorporated against the states. See Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964).

From the Project on Government Oversight: Roger Teague

 An example of the revolving door.

- Click here for the page.

Major General Roger Teague retired on September 1, 2017 from his role as the director of space programs at the U.S. Air Force acquisition office. He was in charge of the development and purchasing on space programs to Air Force major commands, laboratories, and product centers. According to Teague’s LinkedIn profile, he immediately joined Boeing as vice president of space, intelligence, and missile defense systems. In fiscal year 2017, Boeing received $9.2 billion in Air Force contracts.

On March 2, 2020, PredaSAR Corp. announced it was hiring Roger Teague as its new CEO. The company completed a $25 million seed financing to develop the “world’s largest and most advanced” commercially operated Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite constellation. PredaSAR chairman and co-founder Mac Bell stated, “From guiding the Space Based Infrared Systems (SBIRS) program to first launch, to helping The Boeing Company secure a number of recent big wins in their space communications portfolio, we are fortunate to have such an experienced individual at the helm of PredaSAR.”

On August 4, 2020, Roger Teague and PredaSAR announced it had selected SpaceX to launch its first 48 SAR satellites, around the same time SpaceX won a $316 million contract with the United States Space Force.

Project on Government Oversight: Boeing's revolving door

 - Click here for the page

It contains a list of senior defense department officials the firm hired after they retired.

Open Secrets: Boeing

 - Click here for the page.

From Wikipedia: Political contributions, federal contracts, advocacy

 - Click here for the entry.

In 2008 and 2009, Boeing was second on the list of Top 100 US Federal Contractors, with contracts totaling US$22 billion and US$23 billion respectively.[41][42] Since 1995, the company has agreed to pay US$1.6 billion to settle 39 instances of misconduct, including US$615 million in 2006 in relation to illegal hiring of government officials and improper use of proprietary information.[43][44]

Boeing secured the highest ever tax breaks at the state level in 2013.

Boeing's spent US$16.9 million on lobbying expenditures in 2009. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama "was by far the biggest recipient of campaign contributions from Boeing employees and executives, hauling in US$197,000 – five times as much as John McCain, and more than the top eight Republicans combined".

. . . The company is a member of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a Washington D.C.-based coalition of more than 400 major companies and NGOs that advocate a larger International Affairs Budget, which funds American diplomatic and development efforts abroad.[52] A series of U.S. diplomatic cables show how U.S. diplomats and senior politicians intervene on behalf of Boeing to help boost the company's sales.

In 2007 and 2008, the company benefited from over US$10 billion of long-term loan guarantees, helping finance the purchase of their commercial aircraft in countries including Brazil, Canada, Ireland, and the United Arab Emirates, from the Export-Import Bank of the United States, some 65% of the total loan guarantees the bank made in the period.

The Federal Aviation Administration

- From Wikipedia.

The Air Commerce Act of May 20, 1926, is the cornerstone of the federal government's regulation of civil aviation. This landmark legislation was passed at the urging of the aviation industry, whose leaders believed the airplane could not reach its full commercial potential without federal action to improve and maintain safety standards. The Act charged the Secretary of Commerce with fostering air commerce, issuing and enforcing air traffic rules, licensing pilots, certifying aircraft, establishing airways, and operating and maintaining aids to air navigation. The newly created Aeronautics Branch, operating under the Department of Commerce assumed primary responsibility for aviation oversight.

In fulfilling its civil aviation responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Commerce initially concentrated on such functions as safety regulations and the certification of pilots and aircraft. It took over the building and operation of the nation's system of lighted airways, a task initiated by the Post Office Department. The Department of Commerce improved aeronautical radio communications—before the founding of the Federal Communications Commission in 1934, which handles most such matters today—and introduced radio beacons as an effective aid to air navigation.

Relevant Legislation: 

- Air Commerce Act of 1926
- Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938
- Federal Aviation Act  of 1958
- Airline Deregulation Act of 1978

Relevant Executive Agencies: 

- Post Office Department.
- U.S. Department of Commerce.
- Civil Aeronautics Board
- U.S. Department of Transportation
- Bureau of Air Commerce
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration
- National Transportation Safety Board

From Roll Call: House committee: FAA, Boeing cultures led to 737 Max disasters

For an upcoming look at iron triangles.

- Click here for the article.

A “spectacular” regulatory failure by the Federal Aviation Administration and a Boeing culture that prioritized profit over safety contributed to the two crashes of the 737 Max passenger jet that killed 346 people, a damning congressional report concludes.

The 238-page report, released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee majority on Wednesday, found that while the Lion Air Flight 610 crash on Oct. 29, 2018, and the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 crash on March 10, 2019, were nominally caused by the failure of a new steering system in the Boeing 737 aircraft, that system was enabled by a toothless regulatory environment and a company where the desire for profit skewed its prioritization of safety.

“This is a tragedy that never should’ve happened,” said Chairman Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore.

The committee Democrats’ report, based on an 18-month investigation, reaches conclusions that are thematically similar to the myriad investigations that have occurred since the two accidents: that the certification of the aircraft was fundamentally flawed, that the company was more motivated by profits than safety and that concerns raised by Boeing employees were often ignored.

Two stories regarding the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas ballot for the upcoming election.

 Both from the Texas Tribune: 

- Texas Supreme Court rules 3 Green Party candidates should be added back to November ballot.

Days before the deadline to mail ballots to overseas and military voters, the Texas Supreme Court ordered three Green Party candidates to be restored to the November ballot after Democrats had successfully sued to remove them.

The ruling, one of two issued by the Supreme Court on Tuesday that affects mail-in voting procedures, will lead to a scramble at county elections offices. The offices must now update their overseas and military ballots by the Saturday mailing deadline and send new corrected ballots to replace any that had already been mailed.

Last month, a state appeals court last month sided with the Democrats, who were seeking to kick the candidates off the ballot because they had not paid filing fees. The three candidates are David Collins for U.S. Senate, Katija “Kat” Gruene for Railroad Commission and Tom Wakely for the 21st Congressional District.

The Texas Green Party appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court, which ruled Tuesday that the secretary of state “shall immediately take all necessary actions to ensure these candidates appear on the” November ballot. The Supreme Court did not give its rationale, but said a full opinion was forthcoming.

- Texas Supreme Court again blocks Harris County from sending mail-in ballot applications to all voters.

The Texas Supreme Court has once again blocked Harris County from sending mail-in ballot applications to all its 2.4 million registered voters ahead of the November election.

In a Tuesday order, the Supreme Court granted the Texas attorney general’s request to halt the county’s effort just before a separate order blocking the mailing was set to expire. The all-Republican court told Harris County to hold off on sending any unsolicited applications for mail-in ballots “until further order” and while the case makes its way through the appeals process.

A state district judge had ruled Friday that the county could move forward with its plan, shooting down the state's claim that Harris County Clerk Chris Hollins was acting outside of his authority by sending out the applications. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office claimed in court that the mailing of the applications would confuse voters, quickly appealed that ruling to the state’s 14th Court of Appeals. Paxton kicked the request up to the Supreme Court after the appeals court declined his request to block the lower court's ruling and instead set an expedited schedule to consider the appeal.

From the Texas Tribune: Why is the Texas Constitution So Dang Long?

For 2306, a question also addressed in your textbooks.

- Click here for it.

One answer is that amending the state's Constitution is relatively easy. Texas has a relatively low bar for amending its Constitution. Another reason that Texas’ Constitution has needed additions and alterations so often is that, perhaps paradoxically, it takes a highly restrictive view of the powers of state government. Both of these factors, which Texas has in common with many other states, differ markedly from the United States Constitution.

The founding fathers wanted to make it a difficult process to amend the federal Constitution, and they succeeded. There are several different ways to change the U.S. Constitution, but it’s only ever been amended by a process that requires a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress and the approval of three-fourths of the states. Unlike that Constitution, which has remained relatively brief with 27 amendments and has only been changed once since 1971, the Texas Constitution merely requires an amendment be passed by the state Legislature and approved by voters in a referendum.

Another reason for the difference between the two constitutions lies in the different philosophical approaches the framers of the constitutions had about the role of government. The U.S. Constitution sets out the responsibilities and powers of government, and then grants Congress the “power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying” into being the powers granted in the rest of the document. This, the Necessary and Proper Clause, is the justification for a wide array of federal powers not specifically enumerated by the Constitution itself.

There is no equivalent to that clause in the Texas Constitution. Instead, the powers granted to the Legislature and governor include only those specifically written in the state Constitution. So, even small legislative changes — like allowing El Paso County to finance its own parks with local taxes — can require a constitutional amendment and a referendum.

A good example of the challenges posed by this type of restrictive constitution is Article X, one of the 17 articles in the Texas Constitution. The article dealt with the regulation of railroads — a hot-button issue in 1876. Article X has remained in the Constitution long after the federal government took over regulatory duties for transportation, and in 1969, all except one of the Article’s sections was repealed. The remaining section is likewise outdated, and has little force of law.

From Wikipedia: Croton Aqueduct

One of the civil engineering projects mentioned below.

This relates to one of the critical services provided by local governments: Access to clean water.

- Click here for it.

The Croton Aqueduct or Old Croton Aqueduct was a large and complex water distribution system constructed for New York City between 1837 and 1842. The great aqueducts, which were among the first in the United States, carried water by gravity 41 miles (66 km) from the Croton River in Westchester County to reservoirs in Manhattan. It was built because local water resources had become polluted and inadequate for the growing population of the city. Although the aqueduct was largely superseded by the New Croton Aqueduct, which was built in 1890, the Old Croton Aqueduct remained in service until 1955.

For more on Water Supply Networks, click here.

 

The Miami and Sac and Fox Nation

These were tribes removed from the land that became Chicago.

- The Sac  and Fox Nation.

The Sac and Fox Nation (Mesquakie language: Thakiwaki or Sa ki wa ki) is the largest of three federally recognized tribes of Sauk and Meskwaki (Fox) Indian peoples. Originally from the Lake Huron and Lake Michigan area, they were forcibly relocated to Oklahoma in the 1870s and are predominantly Sauk.[2]

The two other Sac and Fox tribes are the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa and the Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska. The Sac and Fox tribes have historically been closely allied, and continue to be in the present day. They speak very similar Algonquian languages, which are sometimes considered to be two dialects of the same language, rather than separate languages. Thakiwaki and Sa ki wa ki mean "people coming forth from the water"

- The Miami People.

The Miami had mixed relations with the United States. Some villages of the Piankeshaw openly supported the American rebel colonists during the American Revolution, while the villages around Ouiatenon were openly hostile. The Miami of Kekionga remained allies of the British, but were not openly hostile to the United States (US) (except when attacked by Augustin de La Balme in 1780).

The U.S. government did not trust their neutrality, however. US forces attacked Kekionga several times during the Northwest Indian War shortly after the American Revolution. Each attack was repulsed, including the battle known as St. Clair's Defeat, recognized as the worst defeat of an American army by Native Americans in U.S. history.[16] The Northwest Indian War ended with the Battle of Fallen Timbers and Treaty of Greenville. Those Miami who still resented the United States gathered around Ouiatenon and Prophetstown, where Shawnee Chief Tecumseh led a coalition of Native American nations. Territorial governor William Henry Harrison and his forces destroyed Prophetstown in 1811, then used the War of 1812 as pretext for attacks on Miami villages throughout the Indiana Territory.

The Treaty of Mississinewas, signed in 1826, forced the Miami to cede most of their land to the US government. It also allowed Miami lands to be held as private property by individuals, where the tribe had formerly held the land in common.

The beginnings of Chicago

 Just south of Kenosha

- Click here for it.

In the mid-18th century, the area was inhabited by the Potawatomi, a Native American tribe who had succeeded the Miami and Sauk and Fox peoples in this region.

The first known non-indigenous permanent settler in Chicago was explorer Jean Baptiste Point du Sable. Du Sable was of African and French descent and arrived in the 1780s. He is commonly known as the "Founder of Chicago".

In 1795, following the victory of the new United States in the Northwest Indian War, an area that was to be part of Chicago was turned over to the US for a military post by native tribes in accordance with the Treaty of Greenville. In 1803, the United States Army built Fort Dearborn. This was destroyed in 1812 in the Battle of Fort Dearborn by the British and their native allies. It was later rebuilt.

After the War of 1812, the Ottawa, Ojibwe, and Potawatomi tribes ceded additional land to the United States in the 1816 Treaty of St. Louis. The Potawatomi were forcibly removed from their land after the Treaty of Chicago in 1833 and sent west of the Mississippi River during Indian Removal.

From Texas Tribune: Here’s your Texas 2020 November ballot

 - Click here for it.

The Mexican-American War - Explained in 16 minutes

The Spanish-American War - Explained in 11 minutes

Something to sock away before we dig into foreign policy.

From the Texas Tribune: Analysis: Elections are fights, settled by voters. This one is no exception.

For our upcoming look at political institutions and elections.

- Click here for the article.

It's election season, peak time for the power of negative thinking.

With voters making their decisions about what to do when the polls open in October — just a month from now — politicians aren’t talking about solving problems. They’re all about their disagreements. They’re not after what they have in common. They're chasing the differences between them and their opponents.

That's why you're not hearing appeals to people who support law enforcement and also believe Black lives matter. You’re hearing appeals that make those principles seem incompatible and that, instead, hide them behind social media hashtags used to mark our political tribes.

The same approach to politics explains why it took so long to get elected leaders to put masks on — to stymie the coronavirus and to encourage the rest of us to do the same. A false choice between community health and personal freedom turned protective facewear into a political marker. That faded, at least in the ranks of the elected class, when the coronavirus began its summer surge in May and June. He almost never does it publicly, but even President Donald Trump wears a mask sometimes. But the divisions remain; you can find them at your nearest grocery store or gas station.

Even the way you vote has become a dividing line in Texas.

Other states have solved this one, holding secure elections without impeding their voters. Texas isn’t there yet, and arguments over the security of absentee voting and the safety of in-person voting during a pandemic found new fuel in the president’s attacks on voting by mail. He does it himself, even while saying expanded voting by mail increases chances of fraud.

New Deal Projects

- Projects in Texas.

- Projects in Houston.

From The American Society of Civil Engineers: HISTORIC LANDMARKS

 The people who built most of America.

- Click here for the list.

Here's an example: The Mason-Dixon Line.

The granite milestones marking the Mason-Dixon Line bear crests from the two parties involved in the land-grant dispute, the families of William Penn and Charles Calvert (also known as Lord Baltimore). 

What is now generally referred to as the Mason-Dixon Line was established by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 as a demarcation between slave and free territories. But that important geographic border took its name from a previous Mason-Dixon Line; one established more than 50 years earlier to formally separate Maryland from Pennsylvania and Delaware. The two Englishmen for whom the line is named accomplished one of the greatest surveying achievements of early America.

Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon were both assistants to astronomer James Bradley at the Royal Conservatory at Greenwich. They were brought to America to settle a border dispute between the inheritors of the land grants establishing Maryland and Pennsylvania. Taking into account the curvature of the earth, the pair carried out extremely precise measurements using astronomical tables and angles based on circular arcs. Their method quickly became the basis for establishing other town and state boundaries, as well as the U.S.-Canada border.

Click here for more on the Penn–Calvert boundary dispute.

The Penn–Calvert boundary dispute (also known as Penn vs. Baltimore) was a long-running legal conflict between William Penn and his heirs on one side, and Charles Calvert, 3rd Baron Baltimore and his heirs on the other side. The overlapping nature of their charters of land in Colonial America required numerous attempts at mediation, surveying, and intervention by the king and courts of England to ultimately be resolved. Subsequent questions over these charters have also been adjudicated by American arbitrators and the Supreme Court of the United States. The boundary dispute shaped the eventual borders of five U.S. states: Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, and West Virginia.

The History of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce

From their website: 

“The power of Congress to regulate interstate and foreign commerce – the ‘commerce clause’ of the Constitution – is at the very core of Congress’s role and responsibility in the American political system. It is, thus, not surprising that the House Energy and Commerce Committee became one of the first standing committees created in Congress in 1795. It stands today as the oldest continuous standing committee in the House and as a committee which is at the crossroads of almost every significant policy area that Congress considers, from the economy and health care to telecommunications, transportation, energy and the environment.” –– Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, at a U.S. Capitol Historical Society dinner in 1995. 

The Committee on Energy and Commerce was originally established on December 14, 1795, as the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.

As our nation has grown and modernized, so too has the Committee’s jurisdiction over commerce – expanding to health care, environmental protection, national energy policy, communications and consumer protection.

Over its more than 200 year history, the committee has had four different names – Commerce and Manufactures (1795-1819), Commerce (1819-1891 & 1995-2001), Interstate and Foreign Commerce (1891-1981) and Energy and Commerce (1981-1995 & 2001-Today).

While its name has changed over time, the Committee has been at the forefront of developing landmark laws that impact the day-to-day lives of all Americans through its broad jurisdiction over commerce.

From Wikipedia: 

The Committee was originally formed as the Committee on Commerce and Manufactures on December 14, 1795. Prior to this, legislation was drafted in the Committee of the Whole or in special ad hoc committees, appointed for specific limited purposes. However the growing demands of the new nation required that Congress establish a permanent committee to manage its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States."

From this time forward, as the nation grew and Congress dealt with new public policy concerns and created new committees, the Energy and Commerce Committee has maintained its central position as Congress's monitor of commercial progress—a focus reflected in its changing jurisdiction, both in name and practice.

In 1819, the Committee’s name was changed to the Committee on Commerce, reflecting the creation of a separate Manufacturers Committee and also the increasing scope of and complexity of American commercial activity, which was expanding the Committee’s jurisdiction from navigational aids and the nascent general health service to foreign trade and tariffs. Thomas J. Bliley, who chaired the Committee from 1995 to 2000, chose to use this traditional name, which underscores the Committee's role for Congress on this front.

In 1891, in emphasis of the Committee's evolving activities, the name was again changed to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce—a title it maintained until 1981, when, under incoming Chairman John Dingell, the Committee first assumed what is now its present name to emphasize its lead role in guiding the energy policy of the United States. Dingell regained chairmanship of the committee in 2007 after having served as ranking member since 1995. In late 2008, Henry Waxman initiated a successful challenge to unseat Dingell as chairman. His challenge was unusual as the party caucus traditionally elects chairmen based on committee seniority. Waxman formally became chairman at the start of the 111th Congress.

The Erie Canal

 

The Hudson River

 

Meet John B. Jervis

 - His Wikipedia entry.

John Bloomfield Jervis (December 14, 1795 – January 12, 1885) was an American civil engineer. America's leading consulting engineer of the antebellum era (1820–60), Jervis designed and supervised the construction of five of America's earliest railroads, was chief engineer of three major canal projects, designed the first locomotive to run in America, designed and built the 41-mile Croton Aqueduct – New York City's fresh water supply from 1842 to 1891 – and was a consulting engineer for the Boston water system.

John Bloomfield Jervis was born in 1795 at Huntington, New York, on Long Island, the son of Timothy Jervis, a carpenter, and Phoebe Bloomfield, the eldest of seven children. Jervis moved with his family to Fort Stanwix (later known as Rome) in upstate New York in 1798 when his father purchased a farm and ran a lumber business. In October 1817 at the age of 22, Jervis was hired by Chief Engineer Benjamin Wright of the Erie Canal as an axeman in a survey party to locate the canal west of Rome, New York. The role of the axemen was to clear away brush and trees along a "trace" four feet wide.(Ibid.) In the spring of 1818, Jervis became a rodman until the canal was located from Rome to Montezuma in July 10, 1818. (Ibid.) By the end of 1818, Jervis was promoted to resident engineer in charge of a canal section seventeen miles long and promoted to General Superintendent of the Eastern Division in 1824.

Jervis left the Erie Canal in early 1825 to again work with Benjamin Wright on the Delaware and Hudson Canal Company. In 1827, Jervis became the chief engineer for the Delaware and Hudson. In this position, he convinced the board of directors to test locomotives for the gravity railroad feeding coal to the canal terminal. Among the four engines imported for the experiment was the Stourbridge Lion, which was built by Foster, Rastrick and Company of England and became the first locomotive to run in the Western Hemisphere

 

The Shenango Canal

 - The Wikipedia entry.

The Chenango Canal was a towpath canal built and operated in the mid-19th century in central New York in the United States. It was 97 miles long and for much of its course followed the Chenango River, along Rt. 12 N-S from Binghamton on the south end to Utica on the north end. It operated from 1834 to 1878 and provided a significant link in the water transportation system of the northeastern U.S., connecting the Susquehanna River to the Erie Canal.

The canal was first proposed in the New York Legislature in 1824 during the construction of the Erie Canal, prompted by lobbying from local leaders in the Chenango Valley. It was authorized by the legislature in 1833 and completed in October 1836 at a total cost of $2,500,000- approximately twice the original appropriation. In 1833 a grand ball was held in Oxford, NY, which feted the canal's approval. The great American civil engineer John B. Jervis was appointed Chief Engineer of the project and helped in its design. This was an era of extensive canal building in the United States, following the English model, in order to provide a major transportation network for the eastern United States.

 

 

Hamilton and Troy, New York

Some background on the two cities where the people emigrated to what became Kenosha, Wisconsin came  from.

- The History of Hamilton: 

The area that became the town of Hamilton (including the village of Hamilton) originally was inhabited by members of the Iroquois League, and some of the territory is still considered to be sacred by the Oneida Indian Nation.[9] Following the American Revolution, the area was ceded to the State of New York.[10] Until 1878, Hamilton was an original outpost of the Chenango Canal.

The town of Hamilton was founded near what is now Earlville and then it gradually expanded into a wide area populated by farms and settlements.

- The History of Troy:

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the Mohican Indians had a number of settlements along the Hudson River near the confluence with the Mohawk River. The land comprising the Poesten Kill and Wynants Kill areas were owned by two Mohican groups. The land around the Poesten Kill was owned by Skiwias and was called Panhooseck. The area around the Wynants Kill, was known as Paanpack, was owned by Peyhaunet. The land between the creeks, which makes up most of downtown and South Troy, was owned by Annape. South of the Wynants Kill and into present-day North Greenbush, the land was owned by Pachquolapiet. These parcels of land were sold to the Dutch between 1630 and 1657 and each purchase was overseen and signed by Skiwias, the sachem at the time. In total, more than 75 individual Mohicans were involved in deed signings in the 17th century.

The site of the city was a part of Rensselaerswyck, a patroonship created by Kiliaen van Rensselaer. Dirck Van der Heyden was one of the first settlers. In 1707, he purchased a farm of 65 acres (26 ha), which in 1787 was laid out as a village.

The name Troy (after the legendary city of Troy, made famous in Homer's Iliad) was adopted in 1789 before which it had been known as Ashley's Ferry, and the region was formed into the Town of Troy in 1791 from part of the Manor of Rensselaerswyck. The township included Brunswick and Grafton. Troy became a village in 1801 and was chartered as a city in 1816. In 1900, the city of Lansingburgh was merged into Troy. In the post-Revolutionary War years, as central New York was first settled, there was a strong trend to classical names, and Troy's naming fits the same pattern as the New York cities of Syracuse, Rome, Utica, Ithaca, or the towns of Sempronius, Manlius, or dozens of other classically named towns to the west of Troy.

From the Founders' Constitution: Links related to the Second Amendment.

1. Statute of Northampton 2 Edw. 3, c. 3 (1328)

2. Sir John Knight's Case

3. Bill of Rights, sec. 7, 2, 16 Dec. 1689

4. William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:139, 1765

5. Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, Declaration of Rights, art. 13

6. House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution, 17, 20 Aug. 1789

7. St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300, 1803

8. Bliss v. Commonwealth

9. William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 125--26 1829 (2d ed.)

10. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91, 1833

11. State v. Mitchell

SEE ALSO:

From The William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal: A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origin of Gun Control in America

If you have the time, you might enjoy this. A review of a book arguing for an individual versus collective right to bear arms.

- Click her for it.

"Every thing of a controvertible nature," James Madison noted regarding his proposed Bill of Rights, "was studiously avoided."'

We may wonder what he would think of the 217 years of controversy that followed. For most provisions of the Bill of Rights, the controversies have focused upon their boundaries and limitations. What is an "unreasonable search," a "compelled" self-incrimination, an "establishment" of religion?

In the case of the Second Amendment' the dispute is far more fundamental, going to the very question of whether it has any meaningful existence. Here, the conflict has been one between variants of two viewpoints:

(1) the "individual rights" view, which has two variants:

(a) The "standard model," which sees the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a personal right on par with other Bill of Rights protections;
(b) What I have termed the "hybrid" view, which sees it as guaranteeing an individual right but limited to private bearing of arms suited for military or militia use; and

(2) the "collective rights" view which likewise has two variants:

(a) The traditional "collective rights" approach, which sees the amendment as protecting only a state interest in an organized militia, i.e., National Guard units; and 
(b) What the Fifth Circuit has termed the "sophisticated" collective rights approach, which sees it as protecting individual activity but only if directly linked to organized militia missions.

As the first view treats the Second Amendment as a meaningful restriction on legislative action, while the second treats it as fundamentally meaningless,7 the conflict is absolute.

From Wikipedia: Marbury v. Madison

Since we will be discussing a variety of Supreme Court cases soon, were is background on the case that allows the judiciary to determine whether a law passed by Congress is authorized by the Constitution.

- Click here for the entry.

The case originated from an incident that occurred in early 1801 as part of the political and ideological rivalry between outgoing President John Adams, who espoused the pro-business and pro-national government ideals of Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party, and incoming President Thomas Jefferson, who favored agriculture and decentralization and led the Democratic-Republican Party. Adams had lost the U.S. presidential election of 1800 to Jefferson, and in March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions in an attempt to frustrate Jefferson and his supporters in the Democratic-Republican Party. The U.S. Senate quickly confirmed Adams's appointments, but upon Adams' departure and Jefferson's inauguration a few of the new judges' commissions still had not been delivered. Jefferson believed the commissions were void because they had not been delivered in time, and instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them. One of the men whose commissions had not been delivered in time was William Marbury, a Maryland businessman who had been a strong supporter of Adams and the Federalists. In late 1801, after Madison had repeatedly refused to deliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court held firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver Marbury's commission was illegal, and secondly that it was normally proper for a court in such situations to order the government official in question to deliver the commission. However, in Marbury's case, the Court did not order Madison to comply. Examining the section of the law Congress had passed that gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction over types of cases like Marbury's, Marshall found that it had expanded the definition of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction beyond what was originally set down in the U.S. Constitution. Marshall then struck down that section of the law, announcing that American courts have the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution. Because this meant the Court had no jurisdiction over the case, it could not issue the writ that Marbury had requested.

The Texas Legislative Redistricting Board.

 - Click here for the more on redistricting in Texas.

 

 

The U.S. Congress

For your perusal: 

- The U.S. House of Representatives.

- The U.S. Senate.

From Wikipedia: Law enforcement in the United States

For 2306, as it relates to their essay topic.

Just like the rest of the American governing system, it is highly complex.

- Click here for the entry.

Law enforcement in the United States is one of three major components of the criminal justice system of the United States, along with courts and corrections. Although each component operates semi-independently, the three collectively form a chain leading from an investigation of suspected criminal activity to the administration of criminal punishment.

Law enforcement operates primarily through governmental police agencies. There are 17,985 U.S. police agencies in the United States which include City Police Departments, County Sheriff's Offices, State Police/Highway Patrol and Federal Law Enforcement Agencies. The law-enforcement purposes of these agencies are the investigation of suspected criminal activity, referral of the results of investigations to state or federal prosecutors, and the temporary detention of suspected criminals pending judicial action. Law enforcement agencies, to varying degrees at different levels of government and in different agencies, are also commonly charged with the responsibilities of deterring criminal activity and preventing the successful commission of crimes in progress. Other duties may include the service and enforcement of warrants, writs, and other orders of the courts.

From the Texas Tribune: Judge temporarily halts efforts to end census count early

 More checking and balancing: 

- Click here for the article.

A federal judge on Saturday ordered the U.S. Census Bureau to halt its plans to wind down operations a month early.

The temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh was the first ruling in a lawsuit brought last month by voting and civil rights groups and Democrat-led local governments, including Harris County, challenging a Trump Administration order to wind down the once-per-decade population count by the end of September. It says that the Census Bureau and Commerce Department, which oversees the agency, must continue operations as planned until a Sept. 17 hearing where Koh will decide whether the count may continue until the original Oct. 31 deadline.

The bureau announced in early August that it moved up the deadline for citizens to respond to Sept. 30. A coalition led by the National Urban League and the League of Women Voters swiftly challenged the decision in court, alleging that the shortened schedule will not produce an accurate count of the U.S. population. The count dictates the distribution of federal funding and reapportionment of congressional seats.

Harris County, which invested $4 million in boosting census outreach, quickly signed onto the lawsuit.

From 538: When To Trust A Story That Uses Unnamed Sources

This is from 2017, but its  possibly timely: 

- Click here for it.

5 tips for reading stories with unnamed sources

1. Multiple sources add up.
2. Unverifiable predictions are suspicious.
3. Specifics matter.
4. Consider the outlet and the reporters.
5. Watch for vague or imprecise “denials” of these kinds of stories. That often means they are accurate.

Some text:

In conclusion, we think you should continue to read stories with unnamed sources, but carefully and cautiously. Even major outlets like CNN and The New York Times occasionally get things wrong when relying on unnamed sources. On the other hand, this article and its follow-up should help you understand why everyone in Washington knew that in February, then-national security adviser Michael Flynn was in deep trouble. He was accused of something that either happened or did not — a factual claim (talking on the phone with the Russian ambassador to the U.S. and discussing sanctions imposed by the U.S. against Russia) — in a story in a traditionally reliable outlet (The Washington Post) that was written by reporters known for covering national security and intelligence issues (Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima), with multiple unnamed sources making the claim (“nine current and former officials”).

A Flynn spokesman, asked to comment on the story, told the Post that Flynn “indicated that while he had no recollection of discussing sanctions, he couldn’t be certain that the topic never came up.” That response was well short of, “no, sanctions were not discussed.”

Flynn resigned from his job within a week.

From Roll Call: Trump focuses on law and order, but will other Republicans follow?

For an upcoming look at campaigns. The issue of law and order has always been beneficial for Republican candidates. 

- Click here for the article.

As protests against racism and police brutality continue to rock the country, President Donald Trump made preserving “law and order” central to his reelection campaign at this week’s Republican convention, arguing that a Joe Biden presidency will result in socialism and anarchy.

“The most dangerous aspect of the Biden platform is the attack on public safety,” Trump said as he accepted the GOP nomination for president at the White House Thursday night.

“No one will be safe in Biden’s America,” Trump later added.

That message has slowly started to pop up in House and Senate races, as Republicans look to hold onto their Senate majority and flip the House by winning districts Trump carried four years ago.

“Today, Washington is failing us: socialists trying to abolish the police, radicals trying to tear down our country And career politicians, they just point fingers and play games,” Iowa GOP state Rep. Ashley Hinson said in her latest TV ad launched Thursday.

. . . The “law and order” message appeared aimed at rallying the GOP base but also appealing to suburban voters, where Republicans lost House seats during the 2018 midterms. Democrats won control of the House two years ago by focusing on health care, and they’re continuing to do so this year as the country is grappling with the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s not clear if stoking fear about impending violence will resonate with independent voters or GOP women who backed Democrats in 2018, since these voters also tend to be turned off by Trump’s rhetoric. But some Republicans believe it could, since unrest in cities hits close to home.

Even so, Republican ads so far have largely focused on other issues.

Aside from the ad attacking Rose on police, the other four ads the Congressional Leadership Fund released Wednesday underscored a message Republicans are planning to deploy in House races across the country: that freshman House Democrats aren't the bipartisan moderates they promised to be in 2018.

What is the sequence of events in the criminal justice system?

I'm really not sure what to make of this, but it looks cool. 


- Click here for the source.

Regarding the Criminal Justice System in Texas

For 2306, especially as you develop your essay topic.

These are the relevant state agencies: 

- Alcohol Beverage Commission
- Department of Criminal Justice
- Commission on Fire Department
- Commission on Jail Standards
- Texas Juvenile Justice Department
- Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
- Texas Military Department
- Department of Public Safety

For budgeting info: The Fiscal Size-Up 2020-21 biennium, see pages 337-378.

For the most recent report on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice from the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission, click here. 

A few items from the Pew Research Center

 - In Views of U.S. Democracy, Widening Partisan Divides Over Freedom to Peacefully Protest.

- Election 2020: Voters Are Highly Engaged, but Nearly Half Expect To Have Difficulties Voting.

- Key things to know about election polling in the United States.

An opinion piece from Roll Call: Why we need an independent Supreme Court

This isn't news, it's opinion. It relates to an important quality demanded on the part of the Supreme Court, that they be independent. The author targets proposals to increase the size of the Supreme Court.

This means they are free from control by outside forces - notable the legislative and executive branches.

- Click here for it.

The events of the last few months have shaken America’s trust in the institutions we rely on to keep us healthy and safe.

In this increasingly divisive political climate, I often think about how challenging it is to build and maintain trust in the institutions that are integral to preserving and protecting our democracy. Every day we see people in leadership and among our citizenry behaving in ways that erode our trust in Congress, the presidency, and the judiciary. But on the positive side, we also see people across the political spectrum working hard to restore trust and make our democratic government work better for the good of its people and the world.

When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they created a broad governing structure and process — with power balanced among three equal branches — that established the parameters for adopting and executing public policy. What they created is integral to building public trust.

Over the years, the public has often placed greater trust in the judiciary than in the legislative and executive branches of government. But in recent years, Gallup polls have found that only about half of Americans approve of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job. In an Annenberg survey from last fall, more than half the respondents said that while they trusted the court, they believed it was too political. And we all know that the process of appointing justices can be very politicized.

Toward the goal of depoliticizing and creating a more balanced Supreme Court, some argue we should create a system for packing the court. Most, if not all, of these proposals would increase the court’s size. (While the Constitution does not specify the size of the court, Congress set the number of justices at nine in 1869.)

But I believe any effort to pack the court would only undermine its independence, which is central to a fair judiciary, and make it even more political. It would also further polarize and divide our nation.

From the Texas Legislature Online: HB 2650 - Relating to candidates nominated by convention

More of an ongoing effort by major parties in Texas to make it more difficult for minor parties to get on the ballot an potentially siphon of votes.

 - Click here for the page regarding the bill. 

More on it from the Texas Tribune; 

- Critics say bill moving through Texas Legislature designed to aid GOP reelection bids.

- Libertarians, Green Party sue to make it easier to get on the ballot in Texas.

From the Texas Tribune: Texas Supreme Court rejects Republicans' attempt to remove 44 Libertarians from the November ballot

For 2306's look at both the courts, parties and elections.

- Click here for the article.

The Texas Supreme Court on Saturday rejected an attempt by Republicans to kick 44 Libertarians off the ballot in the November elections.

Several Republican Party candidates and organizations had sued to remove the Libertarians, arguing they did not pay filing fees — a new requirement for third parties under a law passed by the Legislature last year. But the Supreme Court dismissed the suit, finding that the Republicans missed the August 21 deadline to successfully boot people from the ballot.

“The available mechanism for seeking the Libertarians’ removal from the ballot for failure to pay the filing fee was a declaration of ineligibility,” the court wrote in a per curiam opinion. “But the deadline by which such a declaration can achieve the removal of candidates from the ballot has passed.”

Groups affiliated with both major parties have gone to court in recent weeks to remove from the ballot non-major-party candidates perceived to be a threat. In general, Libertarians are believed to peel votes away from Republicans, while the Green Party is thought to siphon votes from Democrats.

In multiple cases citing the same lack of a filing fee paid, state and national Democrats were successful in removing some Green Party candidates. The Supreme Court suggested that at least some Libertarians may have made the same mistake, but said the GOP was too late in bringing its legal challenge forward.

“Although the result in this instance may be that candidates who failed to pay the required filing fee will nevertheless appear on the ballot, this Court cannot deviate from the text of the law by subjecting the Libertarian candidates’ applications to challenges not authorized by the Election Code,” the court wrote.

Democrats apparently were successful in a similar suit against the Green Party because they filed their case before the deadline.

- Texas Democrats are successfully suing to kick Green Party candidates off the November ballot.

The Union Pacific - Houston meets Kenosha

 

- Click here for Wikipedia's History of the Union Pacific Railroad.

The original company, Union Pacific Rail Road (UPRR), was created and funded by the federal government by Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864. The laws were passed as war measures to forge closer ties with California and Oregon, which otherwise took six months to reach. UPRR remained under partial federal control until the 1890s.

 

 

Daniel Boone Escorting Settlers Through the Cumberland Gap

 

Emigrating Companies

The story on Kenosha below mentions the Western Emigrating Company, which was one of a series of companies established to help move people westward in the early 19th Century.

- The Bullen Family & The Western Emigration Company.
- Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company records.
- The Emigrant Aid Company Parties of 1854.
- The Colonization of the West, 1820-1830.
- Kentucky Emigration and Immigration.
- THE MOVEMENT OF AMERICAN SETTLERS INTO WISCONSIN AND MINNESOTA.
- THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION OF IOWA 1833 TO 1860.

 

The Beaver and Black Hawk Wars

Two Indian Wars are mentioned in the previous posts.

- From Wikipedia: The Beaver Wars.



The Beaver Wars, also known as the Iroquois Wars or the French and Iroquois Wars (French: Guerres franco-iroquoises), encompass a series of conflicts fought intermittently during the 17th century in America. They were battles for economic welfare throughout the Saint Lawrence River valley in Canada and the lower Great Lakes region which pitted the Iroquois against the northern Algonquians and the Algonquians' French allies. From medieval times, Europeans had obtained furs from Russia and Scandinavia. American pelts came on the market during the 16th century, decades before the French, English, and Dutch established permanent settlements and trading posts on the continent. Basque fishermen chasing cod off Newfoundland's Grand Banks bartered with local Indigenous peoples for beaver robes to help fend off the Atlantic chill. By virtue of their location, the tribes wielded considerable influence in European–Indian relations from the early seventeenth century onwards.

- From Wikipedia: The Black Hawk Wars.

The Black Hawk War was a brief conflict between the United States and Native Americans led by Black Hawk, a Sauk leader. The war erupted soon after Black Hawk and a group of Sauks, Meskwakis, and Kickapoos, known as the "British Band", crossed the Mississippi River, into the U.S. state of Illinois, from Iowa Indian Territory in April 1832. Black Hawk's motives were ambiguous, but he was apparently hoping to avoid bloodshed while resettling on tribal land that had been colonized by the United States in the disputed 1804 Treaty of St. Louis.

The Removal of the Potawatomi

This cleared the way for the development of the area on the western shore of Lake Michigan.

- Click here for the Wikipedia entry.

Some history: 

In the 19th century, they were pushed to the west by European/American encroachment in the late 18th century and removed from their lands in the Great Lakes region to reservations in Oklahoma. Under Indian Removal, they eventually ceded many of their lands, and most of the Potawatomi relocated to Nebraska, Kansas, and Indian Territory, now in Oklahoma. Some bands survived in the Great Lakes region and today are federally recognized as tribes. In Canada, there are over 634 recognized First Nation governments or bands.

. . . The United States Treaty period of Potawatomi history began with the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolutionary War and established the United States' interest in the lower Great Lakes. It lasted until the treaties for Indian Removal were signed. The US recognized the Potawatomi as a single tribe. They often had a few tribal leaders whom all villages accepted. The Potawatomi had a decentralized society, with several main divisions based on geographic locations: Milwaukee or Wisconsin area, Detroit or Huron River, the St. Joseph River, the Kankakee River, Tippecanoe and Wabash Rivers, the Illinois River and Lake Peoria, and the Des Plaines and Fox Rivers.

. . . The removal period of Potawatomi history began with the treaties of the late 1820s, when the United States created reservations. Billy Caldwell and Alexander Robinson negotiated for the United Nations of Chippewa, Ottawa and Potowatomi in the Second Treaty of Prairie du Chien (1829), by which they ceded most of their lands in Wisconsin and Michigan. Some Potawatomi became religious followers of the "Kickapoo Prophet", Kennekuk. Over the years, the US reduced the size of the reservations under pressure for land by incoming European Americans.

The final step followed the Treaty of Chicago, negotiated in 1833 for the tribes by Caldwell and Robinson. In return for land cessions, the US promised new lands, annuities and supplies to enable the peoples to develop new homes. The Illinois Potawatomi were removed to Nebraska and the Indiana Potawatomi to Kansas, both west of the Mississippi River. Often annuities and supplies were reduced, or late in arrival, and the Potawatomi suffered after their relocations. Those in Kansas later were removed to Indian Territory, now Oklahoma.