Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always think it's funny when people want to show how "beautiful" New England is, what they show are pictures of trees in the fall, in full color. But tell me, just how long does that stage last? A couple weeks? Let's see the same after the leaves have all fallen off.
This isn't New England. I was trying to show off the houses and the leaves together. This is just when I took the photos.
Credit for what? How can you say one state's history is "better" than another's? Please explain. So one Wikipedia article is longer than another. So freaking what? They have different authors, you can be sure. Colorado was never a slave state, so that portion is of course missing from Colorado's history. And then explain why the battle of Ft. Sumter, with very few troops, is somehow "better" than the battle of Glorieta pass?
By the end of the 16th century, the Spanish and French had left the area of South Carolina after several reconnaissance missions, expeditions and failed colonization attempts, notably the French outpost of Charlesfort followed by the Spanish mission of Santa Elena on modern-day Parris Island between 1562 and 1587.
I see a difference of 36 yearsout of ~450 years, not even 10% difference.
Did you ever think that the wickapedia article is longer for South Carolina then Colorado because South Carolina has more history to discuss? It really does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
And to be honest to admit it.
Anyway, go back over the last posts and you will see that I NEVER said that Ft. Sumter was somehow "better" then the Battle of Glorieta Pass. Those are your words and YOU are the one who brought up Sumter.
What I simply said was questioning your use of the term "major" battle for Glorieta Pass, a battle where both sides each had about 50 men killed. When you said you are a history "aficionado", I thought you would understand that was just a mere skirmish compared to what was going on back east.
Here is your "major" battle - Glorieta Pass (New Mexico)
Casualties both sides about 380
Now look at this:
1. Battle of Gettysburg (Pennsylvania)
Casualties: 51,112 (23,049 Union and 28,063 Confederate)
2. Battle of Chickamauga (Georgia)
Casualties: 34,624 (16,170 Union and 18,454 Confederate)
3. Battle of Chancellorsville (Virginia)
Casualties: 30,099 (17,278 Union and 12,821 Confederate)
4. Battle of Spotsylvania (Virginia)
Casualties: 27,399 (18,399 Union and 9)000 Confederate)
5. Battle of Antietam (Maryland)
Casualties: 26,134 (12,410 Union and 13,724 Confederate)
6. Battle of The Wilderness (Virginia)
Casualties: 25,416 (17,666 Union and 7,750 Confederate)
7. Battle of Second Manassas (Virginia)
Casualties: 25,251 (16,054 Union and 9,197 Confederate)
8. Battle of Stone's River (Tennessee)
Casualties: 24,645 (12,906 Union and 11,739 Confederate)
9. Battle of Shiloh (Tennessee)
Casualties: 23,741 (13,047 Union and 10,694 Confederate)
10. Battle of Fort Donelson (Tennessee)
Casualties: 19,455 (2,832 Union and 16,623 Confederate)
Globally important? I don't think so! The US did not become a "superpower" until after WW I, at which point Denver had a population of 256,000 people and was the 25th most populous city in the US. http://www.census.gov/population/www...0027/tab15.txt
I've always thought easterners were parochial, but this is extreme! The most important city in the US is DC, the capital of the free world. It was founded in 1791, 67 years before Denver.
First, DC is the capital of the US, not some nebulous free world.
Yes, Philadelphia and New York City were globally important in 1900. New York City was the second or maybe third largest city in the world in the early 1900s, whether the US was a superpower was irrelevant. I'd have to go through numbers, Philadelphia was either in the top 10 in the world, or very close to it. I'm not sure how the largest world cities could be unimportant by a world standard, unless they were unusually poor, but neither of them were.
Founding dates don't mean much, because a city could founded early on but be a tiny backwater for much of its life. Los Angeles was founded before DC, but it was unimportant for all of the 19th century.
Found a list of ten largest cities in the world in 1900:
1 London, United Kingdom 6,480,000
2 New York, United States 4,242,000
3 Paris, France 3,330,000
4 Berlin, Germany 2,707,000
5 Chicago, United States 1,717,000
6 Vienna, Austria 1,698,000
7 Tokyo, Japan 1,497,000
8 St. Petersburg, Russia 1,439,000
9 Manchester, United Kingdom 1,435,000
10 Philadelphia, United States 1,418,000
A bit arguable depending on how suburbs are counted, but it's a good rough estimate
Did you ever think that the wickapedia article is longer for South Carolina then Colorado because South Carolina has more history to discuss? It really does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
And to be honest to admit it.
Anyway, go back over the last posts and you will see that I NEVER said that Ft. Sumter was somehow "better" then the Battle of Glorieta Pass. Those are your words and YOU are the one who brought up Sumter.
What I simply said was questioning your use of the term "major" battle for Glorieta Pass, a battle where both sides each had about 50 men killed. When you said you are a history "aficionado", I thought you would understand that was just a mere skirmish compared to what was going on back east.
Here is your "major" battle - Glorieta Pass (New Mexico)
Casualties both sides about 380
Now look at this:
1. Battle of Gettysburg (Pennsylvania)
Casualties: 51,112 (23,049 Union and 28,063 Confederate)
2. Battle of Chickamauga (Georgia)
Casualties: 34,624 (16,170 Union and 18,454 Confederate)
3. Battle of Chancellorsville (Virginia)
Casualties: 30,099 (17,278 Union and 12,821 Confederate)
4. Battle of Spotsylvania (Virginia)
Casualties: 27,399 (18,399 Union and 9)000 Confederate)
5. Battle of Antietam (Maryland)
Casualties: 26,134 (12,410 Union and 13,724 Confederate)
6. Battle of The Wilderness (Virginia)
Casualties: 25,416 (17,666 Union and 7,750 Confederate)
7. Battle of Second Manassas (Virginia)
Casualties: 25,251 (16,054 Union and 9,197 Confederate)
8. Battle of Stone's River (Tennessee)
Casualties: 24,645 (12,906 Union and 11,739 Confederate)
9. Battle of Shiloh (Tennessee)
Casualties: 23,741 (13,047 Union and 10,694 Confederate)
10. Battle of Fort Donelson (Tennessee)
Casualties: 19,455 (2,832 Union and 16,623 Confederate)
Can you see the difference?
So Colorado didn't have a major role in the Civil War. Tell me what role the eastern states played in gold, silver and molybdenum mining?
Boy, people are getting desperate, calling me names and saying I make no sense.
Calling people parochial is name calling, too.
I don't find your arguements sensible. What does being a miltary superpower have to do with whether a city is globally important? How can ones of the world's largest cities (2nd) be unimportant at the time? I don't get it.
So Colorado didn't have a major role in the Civil War. Tell me what role the eastern states played in gold, silver and molybdenum mining?
If were were talking about the history of molybdenum mining, no doubt some of the western states would loom large. Personally, I am considering those events that inspired the great story of our country most of us learned in grade school, however. When considering the seminal events in US history, I tend to see those such as the settlement of new colonies, the Declaration of Independence, the War for Independence, and the founding of a new nation, the ratification of a new constitution and so on as playing a more pivotal role in the grand scheme of things than, let's say, western mining. While I differ in opinion, however, I respect your view if you place more significance on molybdenum mining.
That said, I would venture to guess more tourists make a pilgrimage to see the Liberty Bell than to a molybdenum strip mine.
Coal began to be mined in northeastern Pennsylvania in the early 1800s. Some of the earliest railroads and canals in the United States, like the Delaware and Hudson Canal, the Lehigh Valley RR, the Delaware, Lackawana & Western and Reading RR were formed to bring the coal to cities like Philadelphia and New York.
If were were talking about the history of molybdenum mining, no doubt some of the western states would loom large. Personally, I am considering those events that inspired the great story of our country most of us learned in grade school, however. When considering the seminal events in US history, I tend to see those such as the settlement of new colonies, the Declaration of Independence, the War for Independence, and the founding of a new nation, the ratification of a new constitution and so on as playing a more pivotal role in the grand scheme of things than, let's say, western mining. While I differ in opinion, however, I respect your view if you place more significance on molybdenum mining.
That said, I would venture to guess more tourists make a pilgrimage to see the Liberty Bell than to a molybdenum strip mine.
(my pic)
Lol, I never even heard of molybdenum before.
Sort of why I left it out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
