ADVERTISEMENT

What are the most significant pieces of US History that happened domestically that most Americans don't know about?

And yes, Spanish is a native language just as English is.
The multicultural aspects of American history are vastly underappreciated. We learned ad nauseum of the "melting pot" concept, but it used to be more the norm that any "melting" wasn't really necessary, as much as a "blending" where maintaining a prior culture at least to some extent, including language, was acceptable or even encouraged.

Case in point, my grandmother was born in 1901 in Shelbyville IN. Her birth certificate, an offical government document, was written in German. That was acceptable. English was not an "official language". Then in 1919 she got married. Her marriage certificate, an offical government document, was also written in German. That was acceptable.

German-English bilingualism in Indiana of course fell out of favor in WWII. But the idea that such situations were ever the norm also has been seemingly whitewashed from common knowledge.
 
The multicultural aspects of American history are vastly underappreciated. We learned ad nauseum of the "melting pot" concept, but it used to be more the norm that any "melting" wasn't really necessary, as much as a "blending" where maintaining a prior culture at least to some extent, including language, was acceptable or even encouraged.

Case in point, my grandmother was born in 1901 in Shelbyville IN. Her birth certificate, an offical government document, was written in German. That was acceptable. English was not an "official language". Then in 1919 she got married. Her marriage certificate, an offical government document, was also written in German. That was acceptable.

German-English bilingualism in Indiana of course fell out of favor in WWII. But the idea that such situations were ever the norm also has been seemingly whitewashed from common knowledge.
Melting things together still allows for each individual component to be seen in addition to new things that are created. Blending things together means the individual components are now indistinguishable from each other.
 
The multicultural aspects of American history are vastly underappreciated. We learned ad nauseum of the "melting pot" concept, but it used to be more the norm that any "melting" wasn't really necessary, as much as a "blending" where maintaining a prior culture at least to some extent, including language, was acceptable or even encouraged.

Case in point, my grandmother was born in 1901 in Shelbyville IN. Her birth certificate, an offical government document, was written in German. That was acceptable. English was not an "official language". Then in 1919 she got married. Her marriage certificate, an offical government document, was also written in German. That was acceptable.

German-English bilingualism in Indiana of course fell out of favor in WWII. But the idea that such situations were ever the norm also has been seemingly whitewashed from common knowledge.
Very interesting regarding the use of language. Made me think of the Western Wall in Jerusalem. I don’t believe men and women were separated until 1968. There are reasons to study the past, sometimes it’s helpful to know the present is a recent fork in the road.
 
Melting things together still allows for each individual component to be seen in addition to new things that are created. Blending things together means the individual components are now indistinguishable from each other.
The opposite. If I melt two metals together, they are then fully homogenized, forever. I can, however, build something beautiful out of two metals by blending them into the structure. Each piece of metal retains its identity and attributes.
 
Highly recommend A People's History of the United States by Zinn. Needn't take his commentary as definitive but no disputing the chronicle of events. Recall being especially stunned by the army being called out in multiple cities to march women at bayonet-point back to their factories when they had the temerity to protest against wages/labor conditions.
 
Richard Nixon allegedly paid for his first political campaign with money he won playing poker while in the Navy during WWII.

If true, it’s a huge window into his personality.
How so? ("huge window into his personality") It suggests he was a good poker player (or/and his pals on the base sucked at poker). But beyond that I'm not sure I follow. I doubt he set out to run for office only if he could win enough money to finance a campaign.
 
The opposite. If I melt two metals together, they are then fully homogenized, forever. I can, however, build something beautiful out of two metals by blending them into the structure. Each piece of metal retains its identity and attributes.
Not necessarily. Not all metals are miscible with one another. You can't just melt any two metals and always expect them to form a homogeneous material (i.e., an alloy). In some instances, the metals will stratify upon cooling, and in other instances one metal will form clearly visible globules. And in still other instances one metail may be only partially miscible in the other metal. Sometimes miscibility will vary depending on whether a third metal is present (e.g., two of the metals alloy, while the third is immiscible in the alloy).
 
Not necessarily. Not all metals are miscible with one another. You can't just melt any two metals and always expect them to form a homogeneous material (i.e., an alloy). In some instances, the metals will stratify upon cooling, and in other instances one metal will form clearly visible globules. And in still other instances one metail may be only partially miscible in the other metal. Sometimes miscibility will vary depending on whether a third metal is present (e.g., two of the metals alloy, while the third is immiscible in the alloy).
Will any of them be irascible?
 
Not necessarily. Not all metals are miscible with one another. You can't just melt any two metals and always expect them to form a homogeneous material (i.e., an alloy). In some instances, the metals will stratify upon cooling, and in other instances one metal will form clearly visible globules. And in still other instances one metail may be only partially miscible in the other metal. Sometimes miscibility will vary depending on whether a third metal is present (e.g., two of the metals alloy, while the third is immiscible in the alloy).
But he's a scientist, so he knows.

Blending - to turn into a single mass or entity that is more or less the same throughout
 
How so? ("huge window into his personality") It suggests he was a good poker player (or/and his pals on the base sucked at poker). But beyond that I'm not sure I follow. I doubt he set out to run for office only if he could win enough money to finance a campaign.

I wouldn't think a guy as paranoid as Nixon would be a good poker player. Plus, my first thought was about Dick Winters' portrayal in Band of Brothers, where he told his officer buddy "Never put yourself in a position where you can take from these men." Anyway you cut it, an officer winning at poker from enlisted men jhe commanded, or from officers he obeyed, seems like a bad play. Plus, I knew Nixon was raised in a Quaker family, and graduated from a Quaker college (Whittier), so being a gambler was generally a surprise (although he was already bespoiled by Duke Law School and a stint in government work in DC before WWII). Plus, he was very controlling - and you can't control much about cards.
 
Richard Nixon allegedly paid for his first political campaign with money he won playing poker while in the Navy during WWII.

If true, it’s a huge window into his personality.
My uncle made enough money playing poker on a ship in WWII that he was able to put a down payment on a farm when he got home.

He was actually playing for an Army basketball team in California until he pissed off his CO and they shipped him out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Blending - to turn into a single mass or entity that is more or less the same throughout
You've described a homogeneous blend. There are heterogeneous blends also. Rocky Road ice cream, for example. The nuts still exist independently of the marshmallow, chocolate coating, and ice cream.
 
What if you were to MELT Rocky Road ice cream.

Would it then be more homogeneous, or less, than if it were still frozen?

Think.
 
What if you were to MELT Rocky Road ice cream.

Would it then be more homogeneous, or less, than if it were still frozen?

Think.
Depends, are you defining "melting" as just letting the ice cream reach room temperature, or "melting" as in bringing it up to 800 degrees and bringing all parts of the ice cream up to a liquid state?
 
You've described a homogeneous blend. There are heterogeneous blends also. Rocky Road ice cream, for example. The nuts still exist independently of the marshmallow, chocolate coating, and ice cream.
So are saying that immigrants with their customs and languages are the disgusting marshmallows or the mealy nuts in our delicious ice cream?

I think other people (human beings), regardless of their skin color, their origins or their customs/religions would be viewed as the same as us, thus the blend would be homogenous.
 
Depends, are you defining "melting" as just letting the ice cream reach room temperature, or "melting" as in bringing it up to 800 degrees and bringing all parts of the ice cream up to a liquid state?
Either one would make it much more homogeneous than it was to start with, which was my point. Room temp ice cream and would dissolve the marshmallow cream and give you a consistent soup. You'd still have the chocloate covered nuts floating there. Go to 800 degrees and it's more homogeneous still, as the chocoalte melts.
 
Highly recommend A People's History of the United States by Zinn. Needn't take his commentary as definitive but no disputing the chronicle of events. Recall being especially stunned by the army being called out in multiple cities to march women at bayonet-point back to their factories when they had the temerity to protest against wages/labor conditions.
Zinn's book is one of the principal "evils" that a lot of these Southern Legislatures attacked prior to their culture war on CRT. My Aunt in Tenn used to contradict me when we were both younger and I'd mention the North winning the Civil War.

I always assumed that she was just having fun with me since she was a decade or so older. After all, she was a high schooler and I was just in grade school. But as I've started researching into what Southern history texts used to teach, I've realized that she was likely basing her argument on what she was actually being taught in school...

Not sure I've ever bought into the hyper patriotism espoused by a lot of older Southerners. Always struck me as more than a little strange that descendants of the people who actually took up arms against the Union, would make such an abrupt u-turn and basically try to claim they were "more American" than the rest of us...
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Zinn's book is one of the principal "evils" that a lot of these Southern Legislatures attacked prior to their culture war on CRT. My Aunt in Tenn used to contradict me when we were both younger and I'd mention the North winning the Civil War.

I always assumed that she was just having fun with me since she was a decade or so older. After all, she was a high schooler and I was just in grade school. But as I've started researching into what Southern history texts used to teach, I've realized that she was likely basing her argument on what she was actually being taught in school...

Not sure I've ever bought into the hyper patriotism espoused by a lot of older Southerners. Always struck me as more than a little strange that descendants of the people who actually took up arms against the Union, would make such an abrupt u-turn and basically try to claim they were "more American" than the rest of us...
Was she claiming they won, or demanding you call it The War of Northern Aggression?
 
Indiana v. Kentucky gets personal.
 
Indiana v. Kentucky gets personal.
Good stuff and just a reminder of how little I actually know about the Civil War. I mean I learned the basics in school but I always thought our education of the Civil War was regionally taught. Down south it feels like it’s part of their fabric and up north it’s like we kicked their ass, but meh.
 
Good stuff and just a reminder of how little I actually know about the Civil War. I mean I learned the basics in school but I always thought our education of the Civil War was regionally taught. Down south it feels like it’s part of their fabric and up north it’s like we kicked their ass, but meh.
It’s my favorite historical topic. I agree completely with your assessment on how it’s taught.
Many don’t realize that north and south weren’t nearly as monolithic in their respective beliefs. Kentucky sent more Union troops than Confederate and was nearly divided in loyalty county to county. Southern Illinois nearly seceded from the state to join the south. East Tennesse nearly seceded from the state to join the north. Northeast Alabama raised a full regiment of Union cavalry. West Virginia did split from Virginia and joined the Union. North Carolina raised several Union regiments. Northern draft riots. There was a race riot in New Albany, Indiana and it was a big part of the Underground Railroad. So many examples and those nuances are rarely taught or discussed except among historians, professional and amateur.
 
It’s my favorite historical topic. I agree completely with your assessment on how it’s taught.
Many don’t realize that north and south weren’t nearly as monolithic in their respective beliefs. Kentucky sent more Union troops than Confederate and was nearly divided in loyalty county to county. Southern Illinois nearly seceded from the state to join the south. East Tennesse nearly seceded from the state to join the north. Northeast Alabama raised a full regiment of Union cavalry. West Virginia did split from Virginia and joined the Union. North Carolina raised several Union regiments. Northern draft riots. There was a race riot in New Albany, Indiana and it was a big part of the Underground Railroad. So many examples and those nuances are rarely taught or discussed except among historians, professional and amateur.
Wow, I had no idea a cavalry regiment was raised in Alabama! Or that North Carolina raised Union regiments. I knew about some of the other items, but those were news to me.

I'm going to have to look that up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Eppy99
It’s my favorite historical topic. I agree completely with your assessment on how it’s taught.
Many don’t realize that north and south weren’t nearly as monolithic in their respective beliefs. Kentucky sent more Union troops than Confederate and was nearly divided in loyalty county to county. Southern Illinois nearly seceded from the state to join the south. East Tennesse nearly seceded from the state to join the north. Northeast Alabama raised a full regiment of Union cavalry. West Virginia did split from Virginia and joined the Union. North Carolina raised several Union regiments. Northern draft riots. There was a race riot in New Albany, Indiana and it was a big part of the Underground Railroad. So many examples and those nuances are rarely taught or discussed except among historians, professional and amateur.
I'm much more of a Revolutionary War and WW2 buff, than Civil War. This is fascinating though. Is there a book or two you might recommend?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eppy99 and DANC
Wow, I had no idea a cavalry regiment was raised in Alabama! Or that North Carolina raised Union regiments. I knew about some of the other items, but those were news to me.

I'm going to have to look that up.
 
I'm much more of a Revolutionary War and WW2 buff, than Civil War. This is fascinating though. Is there a book or two you might recommend?
I have a couple hundred just on the civil war. It truly depends on what topic you are interested in reading about. I’m less interested in generalist histories of the war and more interested in gritty detailed histories of battles or units.
A really good book on Union General Jefferson C Davis is Jeff Davis in Blue. He’s from Clark county, Indiana and was an interesting an controversial person.
Another book is Copperheads about southern sympathizers in the north, Indiana in particular.
I will try to think of some others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hookyIU1990
I'm much more of a Revolutionary War and WW2 buff, than Civil War. This is fascinating though. Is there a book or two you might recommend?
I forgot to ask you, what areas of interest of theaters most interest you regarding WW2? I have done some specific research relating to family members and have read some regarding WW2, mainly Pacific theater.
I had a great-Uncle, who was the closest thing to a grandfather I had, who was in the Seabees on Guadalcanal. I found a couple of letters he wrote to the local paper at home.

Unfortunately, my maternal grandfather died under Japanese occupation in Hong Kong. My grandmother, mother, and mom's 6 siblings were civilian POWs for 37 months in Santo Tomas Internment Camp in Manila, P.I. Mom was two months shy of being 9 when they went in and she had her 12th birthday on the transport ship en route back to the U.S. although they had been liberated about 2.5 months prior.

Sadly, I have not read enough about the Revolution. I have read plenty of political history of the time but not enough of the military and civilian history. Just like the Civil War, there were plenty of folks that were still loyal to the crown and yet the colonials pulled off the upset. Hopefully one day I can study it more in depth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Good stuff and just a reminder of how little I actually know about the Civil War. I mean I learned the basics in school but I always thought our education of the Civil War was regionally taught. Down south it feels like it’s part of their fabric and up north it’s like we kicked their ass, but meh.
We outlasted them in the long run. In the short run, they frequently surprised us in individual battles.

Frequently, we were sloppy with our supplies, leading to the South's promotion of one particular Northern general to the rank of "commissary." To a degree the Southern rebels were sloppy too, refusing to insist that the blockade runners return only with ammo, weapons, medicine and food instead of profiteering by smuggling In consumer goods.

Both sides suffered from childish jealousies between generals of near-equal rank and outright insubordination of lower generals who refused to obey orders from both Lincoln and Davis.

In the end, we outlasted them.
 
We outlasted them in the long run. In the short run, they frequently surprised us in individual battles.

Frequently, we were sloppy with our supplies, leading to the South's promotion of one particular Northern general to the rank of "commissary." To a degree the Southern rebels were sloppy too, refusing to insist that the blockade runners return only with ammo, weapons, medicine and food instead of profiteering by smuggling In consumer goods.

Both sides suffered from childish jealousies between generals of near-equal rank and outright insubordination of lower generals who refused to obey orders from both Lincoln and Davis.

In the end, we outlasted them.
Who's "we"?
 
I'm much more of a Revolutionary War and WW2 buff, than Civil War. This is fascinating though. Is there a book or two you might recommend?
Shelby Foote's three volume History of the Civil War, Doris Goodwin's Team of Rivals.

Both should be cheap at Half Price Books.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hookyIU1990
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT