franklludwig

Over the past 6 months I have worked on my own History of the United States, and I think I have researched each event sufficiently, but I would like to be on the safe side.

I am fully aware that few (if any) will agree with my interpretations and conclusions, but I would be grateful to any expert who takes the time to check the page for factual errors.

The piece can be found at Mundus Americanus - History of the United States (© Frank L. Ludwig)

Thanks!

Jax Historian

This is a very mature and tremendously insightful history of the United States. It brings to light how the whole history of the U.S. has been nothing been a long string of evil acts never once interrupted by any type of good. Apparently, Americans are remarkably consistent people. You are to be commended for your great intellectual achievement in creating this history. And the complete absence of factual errors is amazing.

Baltis

"while this is true about a good deal of the immigrants, the other part isn’t mentioned at all - lawless adventurers, criminals on the run, convicted felons (many murderers were given the choice between the old gallows and the New World, and not all of them picked the rope) and religious fanatics" and some of the new Americans, I'm sure, were good people.

bugulgad

One should think about significance, relevance and originality before writing a piece.

Forgive me if I am not the least bit interested in reading ANOTHER version of US History.

Do you have any other drafts of topics so far less covered?

stevev

Yes. The US is a most evil place. Perhaps, from Ireland, franklludwig could rally other nations to overthrow NATO, and any other associations with the US. Furthermore he might wish Russia to throw a protective shield over Europe and other endangered places. Russia is the one country that can completely destroy the US. But after that, who would be interested in reading his history?

BTW why are there so many people with Irish surnames in the US? I'm sure they're not all Unionist.

Kevinmeath

Sorry just read quite a few sections and sorry its not vey good at all.

OK its your (very) biased opinion but it pretty sketchy on facts as well.

For instance the RMS Lusitania was not packed full of ammunition. It perhaps had some small arm ammunition on board (against the 'rules') and it certainly didn't cause the explosion that sunk the ship.

The Germans did not know this and didn't radio ahead the information , your account is completely wrong, the German U-boat commander sank a passenger ship against the rules of his own commanders.

The Germans did ignore 'cruiser rules' and no the British did not use 'passenger ships' to transport ammunition.

From what I have read of your account (and I read quite a lot) your account of American history is politically biased, short on facts and long on opinions.

Edric Streona

Some of the facts seem a little.... misleading. No context given to show things in the worst possible light?

franklludwig

Thank you all for your comments. Of course I'm not saying that all Americans are 'bad', and even amongst those who made history there were heroes such as Thaddeus Stevens.

As for the Lusitania, the transport of ammunition is the only plausible explanation of the second explosion, and part of that ammunition has been found in 2008 (https://www.npr.org/templates/story/...oryId=97350149). The Germans were aware of this; that's why they placed ads in American newspapers to warn passengers (https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-si...street/5381121). I'm not trying to defend the Germans, though - the targeting of passenger ships is as much a war crime as the use of passenger ships to carry war supplies.

And bugulgad, if you're after more exotic topics, you might be interested in The Autistic Neanderthal (© Frank L. Ludwig) or When Did Feminists Abort the Pro-Life Position? (© Frank L. Ludwig)

Kevinmeath

Sorry your writing says otherwise, you asked for comments about your history writing and its very biased and speaks volumes about your dislike of Americans.

Its not good history.

No its not and your article doesn't say that , they found (unexploded !) small arms ammunition -- that is not going to cause a 'huge' explosion that will sink a big ship like the Lusitania.

Most common thought today is that either the boilers exploded or a coal explosion occurred after the torpedo hit.

The small arms on the ship did make it a 'legitimate' target however there is no way on earth that the U-Boat commander knew this, he could not have been informed of this (as you imply) and sank the ship in dis-obedience of his own rules of engagement

The Germans were trying to starve Britain (as Britain was trying to do to Germany-- and did), both sides were breaking the 'cruiser' rules.

It should not have been a problem to be on a British ship as a enemy warship should stop and search the ship, if contraband was found then the ship could be taken as a 'prize' or sunk but only after provision had been made for passengers and crew. The British did this the Germans did not.

Sorry your whole account defends the Germans and repeats their propaganda.

Passenger ships were not used to transport supplies as you claim-- cargo ships were some of which also carried passengers.

The Lusitania was not 'packed full' of ammunition, that's German WWI propaganda to justify why they sank a ship their own rules said should not have been sunk.

You wanted comments on your history of the USA , I don't think its a good account at all you need to stop viewing history as a battle between 'good guys and bad guys' the worlds a bit more complicated than that.

You also seem to have a dislike of Americans (they are people ,inferior to you obviously, but people nevertheless some good ,some bad, some ugly etc) for goodness sake dismissing abolitionists as hypocritical 'white supremists' !

But I would suggest having an irrational dislike of a people is going to negatively colour your writing of their history.

phil1904

dear @franklludwig

First of all, welcome and it seems that the year 2018 begins well on Historum.
I have carefully read your source and the secondary and primary sources included in it, as far as relations with the Indians are concerned, until the 1823s (Monroe doctrine) - 1824 (Indian affairs office).
This is an aspect of American history that interests me particularly and on which I have some quite thorough knowledge.
I confirm to you that AFAIK, your source and not only very interesting but also very relevant, at least for this part of American History.
Here are some interesting excerpts:

John Winthrop and the earliest Puritans annulled any Native American claims to the land by declaring Indian rights illegal. “The Indians,” he said, “had not ‘subdued’ the land, and therefore had only a ‘natural’ right to it, but not a ‘civil right.’ A ‘natural right’ did not have legal standing.” [1] Said Puritan clergyman Cotton Mather on the genocide of the Pequot by the Plymouth Colony,

"In a little more than one hour, five or six hundred of these barbarians were dismissed from a world that was burdened with them. It may be demanded ... Should not Christians have more mercy and compassion? But ... sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents. ... We had sufficient light from the word of God for our proceedings.” [2]

The great Kentucky statesman Henry Clay’s treatise against Indians as U.S. Secretary of State is indicative of the expansionist atmosphere rationalized in 1827 and beyond:

"It is impossible to civilize Indians. There was never a full-blooded Indian that ever took to civilization. It is not in their nature. They are a race destined for extinction ... I do not think they are, as a race, worth preserving. Consider them as essentially inferior to the Anglo-Saxon race which is now quickly replacing them on this continent. They are not an improvable breed, and their disappearance from the human family will be no great loss to the world. In point of fact, they are rapidly disappearing and ... in fifty years from this time there will not be any of them left. [3]"

I understand perfectly well that there is no anti-Americanism in your posts.
By the way, who are the "Americans"?
All the citizens of this country, it seems to me, including those of Indian origin.

I haven't got plenty of time, I have to go.
Kind regards and congratulations, keep on going.