History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home Rule at the South in 1877.

1907 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 513
Author(s):  
Paul Leland Haworth ◽  
James Ford Rhodes
Author(s):  
A. Krylov

The post-Soviet history of the South Caucasus is divided into three stages of different duration, format and character. The first stage (1991-2008) began after the collapse of the USSR and continued until the war in South Ossetia in August 2008. At this time, the formation of independent states took place, the vectors of foreign policy of the new states were determined. The second stage of the post-Soviet history of the South Caucasus (2008-2020) began after a five-day war and Russia's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia has strengthened its position in the South Caucasus by building a long-term system of response to potential threats in the southern direction. The Georgian factor has ceased to play an important role, the Armenian direction has become the main one in the policy of the United States and the collective West. To reformat the South Caucasus in American interests, “football diplomacy” was used, and then the second Karabakh war followed. After the end of the second Karabakh war, the third stage of the post-Soviet development of the South Caucasus began. At the end of 2020, Moscow managed to stabilize the situation and bring a contingent of Russian peacekeepers into the conflict zone. Further prospects for the development of the South Caucasus depend on many contradictory factors. The more tense the international situation and Russia's relations with the United States and the collective West will be, the higher the likelihood of the outbreak of new wars and conflicts in the South Caucasus.


Author(s):  
Łukasz Zaremba

In 2015, an armed young white man entered the church in Charleston and killed nine African-Americans. He was guided by racist motives, modeled on Confederate soldiers, and had previously been willing to photograph himself with the Confederate flag. This event once again triggered a discussion in the United States not only about the ideological but also material heritage of the Confederacy states, including the monuments ubiquitous in the cities of the South: memorials to Confederacy leaders but also to anonymous soldiers. These monuments have become the subject of stormy disputes. Some of them were removed by the authorities (New York, New Orleans), some were overthrown in grassroots actions by activists (including Durham and Chapel Hill, referred to in the article); however, a large group was defended by the Republican state authorities. The article - written from the perspective of visual culture studies - aims to recognize the specificity of the monument's medium in the context of these disputes. It argues that the most important characteristic of the medium considered obsolete today (static, unchangeable, heavy, physical, public, etc.) is its ability to present itself as natural, eternal, "historical". These monuments do not only serve to distort the history of civil war in the states of the South (particularly by erasing slavery from it). At the time of their creation - several decades after the war - they were tools of an aggressive policy of segregation and were intended to emphasize the domination of whites and the permanence of pre-war racial divisions. The analysis of a contemporary artistic "monumental" intervention - Kehinde Wiley's Rumors of War, unveiled in December 2019 - will help in recognizing the specificity of the monument's medium. This work, from the perspective of art criticism falling into the traps of politics of representation, from the perspective of visual culture studies turns out to be an important guide, entering into a complicated dialogue with the monuments of five Confederate leaders still present at the Monument Avenue in Richmond, the capital of the secessionists.


2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 87-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yalidy Matos

“A Legacy of Exclusion” briefly traces the historical migration of Latinas/os to the US South, countering the myth that the migration of Latinas/os to the region is new. Additionally, the piece argues that the exclusion Latinas/os face in the region is a continuation of racist policies and unequal power dynamics in the South that link Latina/o presence to a longer historical past and legacy. Through an examination of Alabama’s anti-immigration legislation, HB 56, I make two interrelated arguments. First, I argue that although there is nothing new about Latina/o migration to the region, what is new is the geopolitics of immigration — specifically, the proliferation of immigration enforcement within the interior of the United States. Second, these kinds of racist exclusionary projects have historical precedent. The contemporary regulation of nonwhite bodies is part of a much longer legacy of social control in the United States. Moving forward, I urge scholars of Latina/o studies and related fields whose focus is on the US South to engage with the history of settler colonialism, the displacement of native peoples, and the African American history of this region as a way to make important historical connections among and across racialized and otherized groups.


1914 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 175-204
Author(s):  
Richard Clark Reed

“A Bout the last of August came in a Dutch man of warre that sold us twenty negars.” Thus reads the ancient official record which chronicles in those few words one of the most fateful events that has found place in the annals of our country, the introduction of African slavery. The year was 1619, and the place was the little colony of Jamestown, then in the thirteenth year of its existence. The institution at once took root downward and bore fruit upward. The trade rapidly grew and the market enlarged despite many earnest protests, until throughout the thirteen colonies ready sale was found for all the slaves that were offered. The traffic continued for one hundred and eighty-nine years, and when it was finally suppressed in 1808, there was a slave population in the United States numbering considerably over one million. From the first the most popular market was in the South, and ultimately the institution became localized in that section. This was not because of difference of mental and moral attitude in the two sections, but because of different climatic and economic conditions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 57
Author(s):  
David L. Wilson

Anyone who really wants to understand U.S. immigration policy needs to read the brief history of the U.S.-Mexico border in Aviva Chomsky's often-brilliant new book on immigration.&hellip; Politicians constantly tell us we have lost control of the border. In fact, as <em>Undocumented</em> demonstrates, never in the 166 years since the border was established by the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo has it been so tightly controlled as it is now. For nearly half its history it was exactly the thing immigration opponents say they fear most&mdash;an open border. The first serious restrictions did not come until a head tax and a literacy requirement were imposed in 1917, and even then there was an exemption for Mexican workers, the people most likely to enter the country from the south.&hellip; The United States wanted this labor for a reason: it was cheap and disposable.<p class="mrlink"><p class="mrpurchaselink"><a href="http://monthlyreview.org/index/volume-67-number-5" title="Vol. 67, No. 5: October 2015" target="_self">Click here to purchase a PDF version of this article at the <em>Monthly Review</em> website.</a></p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document