Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 16th, 2018, 02:22 PM   #111

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 11,847
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Look, the majority of Romanians were late nomadic shepherd people until the early modern period, of course the stone churches were to expensive for such communities.
I am sorry, that isn't an answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
... -they were also denied building stone churches. ...
there's nothing about wealth in Decebalus' allegation, but about a decision (or a law?)

So, was there such an interdiction in place or not?
deaf tuner is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 16th, 2018, 02:24 PM   #112
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 472

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulun View Post
yep these probably just use the older estimates by Györffy and Szűcs, again i recommend you to check the Kubinyi article i linked above https://tti.btk.mta.hu/images/kiadva...-3/kubinyi.pdf, your own link also closer to that (in fact using the lower estimates of Kubinyi as i see)
IT is also a very old estimation my Slovak friend, and it is not better than the others.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 02:26 PM   #113
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 472

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaf tuner View Post
I am sorry, that isn't an answer.



there's nothing about wealth in Decebalus' allegation, but about a decision (or a law?)

So, was there such an interdiction in place or not?
Where is the concrete year and the number of that act? It is just a nationalist urban legend/propaganda.

Decebalus was smashed with my answers ))

Late nomadism is an answer for poor conditions, which also effected church buildings too. The other cultural effect was the general rarity of stone/brick churches in (non-greek) Orthodox medieval countries.

The Slavs are the best example for the different effects of Orthodox and Western Christian civilizations. The Western Christian Slavs had a much-much faster economic societal, institutional infrastructural development even in the medieval period than the Orthodox Slavs.

Last edited by janossyjanos; June 16th, 2018 at 02:33 PM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 02:40 PM   #114

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 11,847
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Where is the concrete year and the number of that act? It is just an urban legend. ..
IDK, it is why I was asking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
... Decebalus was smashed with my answers )) ...
I'm not interested in smashes. I prefer watching a tennis match for that, not reading a history forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
... Late nomadism is an answer for poor conditions, which also effected church buildings too. The other cultural effect was the general rarity of stone/brick churches in (non-greek) Orthodox medieval countries.
IDK.

There are catholic and protestant wooden churches (UNESCO monuments) in Slovakia, build in the same period as the stone orthodox churches (UNESCO monuments again) in Moldavia, we can talk about Scandinavia, Poland, Ukraine, aso, aso. ...

To link the material used strictly to nomadism and the type of religion is very, very narrow as vision. The very first factor in buildings is the region and its characteristics, its resources. Culture, religion, wealth, comes afterwards.

Last edited by deaf tuner; June 16th, 2018 at 02:43 PM.
deaf tuner is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 04:49 PM   #115
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2018
From: Poland
Posts: 233

Demography of 16th century Poland is very well studied but most figures are for ca. 1570 - 1580.

I will check what they say about the population size for each region, I have this data somewhere.
Lech Wielkopolski is offline  
Old June 16th, 2018, 05:36 PM   #116
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2018
From: Poland
Posts: 233

Okay I found it: Population of Poland in the 1500s

Edit: Moved to a separate thread.

Last edited by Lech Wielkopolski; June 16th, 2018 at 06:14 PM.
Lech Wielkopolski is offline  
Old June 17th, 2018, 02:28 PM   #117

decebalus's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: On the shores of the Pontus Euxin
Posts: 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaf tuner View Post
This:
Click the image to open in full size.

is The Densuș Church



this:
Click the image to open in full size.

is Church of the Holy Cross, Pătrăuți (not even on the territory of Hungary, nomatter what historical period You take)



this:
Click the image to open in full size.

is a wooden church!

What is Your point, exactly ?

Thank you very much for this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deaf tuner View Post
IDK, it is why I was asking.
Click the image to open in full size.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=GM2...page&q&f=false


-this down here it is very interesting to read



Click the image to open in full size.


https://books.google.ro/books?id=4NY...page&q&f=false

Please take note that none of the authors is Romanian.



Quote:
Originally Posted by deaf tuner
IDK.

There are catholic and protestant wooden churches (UNESCO monuments) in Slovakia, build in the same period as the stone orthodox churches (UNESCO monuments again) in Moldavia, we can talk about Scandinavia, Poland, Ukraine, aso, aso. ...

To link the material used strictly to nomadism and the type of religion is very, very narrow as vision. The very first factor in buildings is the region and its characteristics, its resources. Culture, religion, wealth, comes afterwards.

This is of course another false statement of janossy, I actually dare him or anyone to find a medieval wooden church in any Romanian historical province other than Trannsylvania.


Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos
It is just a nationalist urban legend/propaganda.

The only nationalist here its yourself.


And try getting your facts checked with sources other than hungarian, hungarian historiography is as biased as North Korean.









Click the image to open in full size.
decebalus is offline  
Old June 17th, 2018, 03:26 PM   #118

decebalus's Avatar
Archivist
 
Joined: Jul 2014
From: On the shores of the Pontus Euxin
Posts: 173

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
And I will fix your text, and correct it with much more details.


Wrong. You interpret the medieval situation in the modern-day ethnic nation criteria of national awakening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unio_Trium_Nationum

Unio Trium Nationum (Latin for "Union of the Three Nations") was a pact of mutual aid codified in 1438 by three Estates of Transylvania: the (largely Hungarian) nobility, the Saxon (German) patrician class, and the free military Székelys.[1] The union was directed against the whole peasantry - regardless of ethnicity - as a reaction to the Transylvanian peasant revolt.[1] In this feudal estate parliament, the peasants (let they be Hungarian, Saxon, Székely or Romanian origin) were not represented and did not benefit from their acts, because the peasantry, the commoners simply did not belong to these feudal "nations".[2]


Click the image to open in full size.
-oldest attested document mentioning Romanian attendance at Transylvanian assemblies



Hungarians allowed the existence of Orthodoxy, despite Orthdoxy was considered as "national security risk" by the the kings. In other countries, which were close to the Orthodox people, (like Poles before their religious freedom act) it was not allowed in such degree.

Wikipedia is not an accepted source in any academic circle.

Click the image to open in full size.


Click the image to open in full size.

https://books.google.ro/books?id=4NY...page&q&f=false

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
The situation was much better than in Wallachia and Moldova, where the Peasants had semi-villain semi- antique (Greco-Roman era) thrall status. In Wallachia and Moldavia every kenez nobleman had right to sentence to death their peasants (it is a very brutal and dangerous right in the hands odf so many people), while in Hungary only Voivodes and bans (roughly viceroys) had such right (in Hungarian Pallósjog) mostly in wartime. In Hungary there were two levels of legal courts for peasants, and in important events (even a dispute between a peasant and noblemen) the legal courts made the decisions with Ius appellate. In Hungary the maximum taxes were described by laws, unlike in medieval wallachia and Moldavia, where the kenéz nobleman determined the tax ratio himself. (It is also made the life of the romanian shepherds and peasants miserable in Wallachia and Moldavia.

You are probably talking about serfs and not free peasants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
No wonder that many Wallachians migrated to Transylvania, to improve their social status and lifestyle.
Wrong! Actually the situation was exactly oposite.
Click the image to open in full size.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=4NY...0serfs&f=false




Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Romania was one of the last country which abolished the serfdom of peasantry in Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
(it was not possible earlier, because of the resistance of Romanian Kenez nobility)

Wrong! Yet another misinformation, serfdom was abolished on August 5, 1746 in Wallachia(second only to England and Wales) and August 6, 1749 in Moldavia meanwhile the Austrian Empire abolished serfdom in a first step in 1781 but continued to exist until 1848.




Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
In your dreams. Unlike the Western civilization (Catholic protestant countries) the Orthodox European countries were simply not on that socio economical level to build stone and brick churches in villages and small towns. That's why you can see so few medieval stone and brick churches in orthodox countries, most of stone churches related to large cities or very rare and very important religious centers. (the only exception were the Greeks who had uncountable stone/brick structures since byzantine era) The overwhelming majority of the Orthodox churches were wooden churches. It had economic reasons, and they had very few people who know about masonic technology, but they could built wooden churches which were cheaper and many common people could understand how to build them.
Wrong!Churches were commisioned for by boyars or the voievode and built with foreign masons.


Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
Do you think about the shameful revolt of Revolt of Horea, Cloșca and Crișan, which ended up in masscares, where they killed 4000 Hungarian commoners?
The saddest chapters of the revolution were the massacres of the people of Nagy- enyed, Arudbanya, Verespatak and Gyulafehervar.
https://books.google.com/books?id=L_...W4BFMQ6AEIKDAA




Wrong!The link its about the 1848 massacres, it written in the text...



The rest of your text is also aberrations combined with hungarian propaganda and lies but its late here and I am really tired of fact checking all this nonsense.
decebalus is offline  
Old June 18th, 2018, 10:16 AM   #119
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Győr
Posts: 472

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
Wikipedia is not an accepted source in any academic circle.

Wrong. As you can see on the Wiki link, the Wiki article contains references (and links) of academic authors. Don't be lazy to open them.

Unio Trium Nationum (Latin for "Union of the Three Nations") was a pact of mutual aid codified in 1438 by three Estates of Transylvania: the (largely Hungarian) nobility, the Saxon (German) patrician class[1], and the free military Székelys.[2] The union was directed against the whole peasantry - regardless of ethnicity - as a reaction to the Transylvanian peasant revolt.[2] In this feudal estate parliament, the peasants (let they be Hungarian, Saxon, Székely or Romanian origin) were not represented and did not benefit from their acts[3], because the peasantry, the commoners simply did not belong to these feudal "nations".[4]

Lucian Leuștean (2014). Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-century Southeastern Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 132. ISBN 9780823256068.

Ştefan Pascu (1990). A History of Transylvania. Dorset Press. p. 101. ISBN 9780880295260.

Mircea Dogaru; Mihail Zahariade (1996). History of the Romanians: From the origins to the modern age, Volume 1 of History of the Romanians, History of the Romanians. Amco Press. p. 148. ISBN 9789739675598.


You anachronistically tried to project back the modern day nation definition of the national awakening period (especially ethnic nation) to the medieval feudal period.

Did you know that the Catholic Church was also considered as a nation in medieval Kingdom of Hungary?

So the members of the Transylvanian school demanded special social and economic privileges for every Romanians, which only the Hungarian Saxon and Székely nobility and elite groups enjoyed in contemporary Transylvania. It would mean, that only the Hungarian peasant and Saxon peasants had to pay all the taxes in Transylvania. It is disgusting type of national ego-centrism. So the Romanians had never have universal claims for political and civil rights for everybody, unlike the progressive group of Hungarian leaders, ( like the Hungarian Jacobin movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ign%C3%A1c_Martinovics ) which universally wanted to create civic and political rights for everybody.

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
Haha, King louis don't like the Orthodoxy, because it was a political threat for Hungary, despite of his plans, Orthodox people even Jews could held their religion. (Only Jews were asked by Louis to leave the country, but after 3 years, Jews were allowed to re-settle)

Casimir III of Poland had no choice than tolerate the Orthodoxy in the freshly occupied 100% Orthodox territories in modern-day Ukraine, but I spoke about Kingdom of Poland-proper. The "Orthodox barbarians" as the Poles call them.

Historically the common national identity of Hungary Poland and Croatia are also based on the identity as the Western bulwark against Ottoman Muslim, and Orthodox barbarism and primitivism. You can read a book about it here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=sm...barism&f=false

Title Race and the Yugoslav region: Postsocialist, post-conflict, postcolonial?
Theory for a Global Age
Author Catherine Baker
Publisher Oxford University Press, 2018
ISBN 152612663X, 9781526126634
Subjects Social Science › Ethnic Studies › General

Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
You are probably talking about serfs and not free peasants.
No I spoke about medieval and early modern Wallachia and Moldavia, there were no free peasants in that period. Every Romanian boyars had right to sentence to death any of their peasants without trials, and the taxation was not limited by law. Than you started to mention of the modern era Romanian serf migrations, which was off-topic in that regard.



Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
Wrong! Actually the situation was exactly oposite.
Click the image to open in full size.
https://books.google.ro/books?id=4NY...0serfs&f=false
Wallachia and Moldavia were newly founded states, where the feudalism and settled villager lifestyle of the population were only "under construction", which newly established state allowed more freedom from Romanian migrants, but only in the beginning. You forget that the landlords of medieval Transylvanian Wlachs were quasi-noble Romanian origin kenezs boyars, who often demanded from their peasants much more than the medieval Hungarian landlords from the Hungarian serfs. The Romanians


"
The social status of the Romanians' leaders remained unaltered. Village officially designated as Romanian were headed by voivodes, krainiks, or, less commonly, cnezes (kenez). On several estates, notably at Világos, Csicsó, Kővár, Erdőd, and Somlyó, Romanian settlements were grouped into districts, and the titles came to signify differences in rank: the voivode was the head of the district, while the krainik denoted his deputy or the magistrate of a village. In other places, such as the Gyula domain, it was the village magistrate who bore the title voivode.

{1-705.} These leaders stood above the common villeins, but they could not rise higher than freeman-villein (szabados). Their office entitled them to demand produce and work from the villeins, but they too owed dues, however symbolic, to the landowner, in the form of deer and sparrowhawks. Even Orthodox priests had to pay a tax, called lazsnak or pokróc ('blanket')."


But the situation was drastically changed in the 15th and 16th century, when the feudal order consolidated in Wallachia and Moldavia, where the feudal oppression reversed the direction of Romanian migrations. It was more attractive for them to live in Transylvania than in Moldavia or Wallachia:

"the strong wave of immigration from the Romanian principalities that began in the last third of the 16th century had the opposite effect. However, the details of this second movement are equally difficult to reconstruct.

The expansion of the Ottoman empire after 1526 brought about not only Hungary's fragmentation but also the lasting subjection of Moldavia and Wallachia. The outward form of subjection did not change, for Romanian rulers continued as vassals who paid tribute, but Turkish interference acquired a different character. When Hungary collapsed, the principalities lost a neighbour which, while also demanding fealty, served to counterbalance the ambitions of the Sublime Porte. Poland, too, had entertained designs on Moldavia, but Turkish arms prevailed.

The principalities would find no rulers who measured up to the impetuous Petru Rareş, or to Radul (Radu de la Afumaţi), who devised anti-Ottoman strategies with Louis II and his successors.

In the contest for the Moldavian and Wallachian thrones, ambitious boyars foolishly vied for Istanbul's support by promising to increase the tribute. The Porte took advantage of these internal rivalries to tighten its grip on the principalities, where it already had permanently-stationed garrisons. The posts of voivode were given to the most submissive boyars, and even they were replaced every few years to forestall a consolidation of their power. In the 16th century, there was a 64-year period when Wallachia was ruled in succession by nineteen boyars, only two of whom died of natural causes. Meanwhile, the tribute paid to the Porte kept getting larger and larger.

{1-701.} Misery is always a strong inducement to migrate, but the peasants of the two principalities were uncommonly susceptible to the lure of distant refuge. Although a majority of them lived off agriculture, their shift to cultivation and permanent settlement was of recent date. (The original name given by Hungarians to the Romanians, the now rather pejorative oláh, was derived from 'walach', which also came to denote a semi-nomadic shepherd.) Many others remained in the mountains with their flocks, and even those who chose permanent settlement continued to raise sheep, a distinctively Romanian practice in Eastern Europe.

Thus the disastrous economic effects of Turkish oppression prompted a massive emigration of smallholders and of their peasants. Some of them remained beyond the Carpathians and attempted to reach Galicia, but the majority headed for Transylvania, partly because it was readily accessible from Wallachia, and partly because of the lure of its communities of earlier Romanian settlers.

The migrant Romanians took the well-trodden route through the forests and pastures of Transylvania's mountains. Their first choice was to settle in the existing Romanian communities, but these could not accommodate all of the newcomers, for the population had grown considerably over the preceding centuries; there was no pastureland to spare, and ploughland could only be expanded by onerous forest-clearing. The new settlers greatly increased the density of population. Around Belényes, in the south-eastern corner of Bihar county, the population was greater in the late 1500s than a century later.

Thus many in the latest wave of immigrants had to seek land elsewhere. They settled on pastures that had been used only intermittently and proceeded to clear more and more land. Romanian-inhabited areas came to form an unbroken strip from the Máramaros, through the Belényes Basin and the Gyalu Alps, to Fogaras, Hunyad county, and the Severin Province. This transformation drew the attention of officials at the turn of the century. {1-702.} Zacharias Geizkoffler, the Habsburg army's paymaster, reported after a visit to Transylvania that 'previously there were few Romanian villages, but now they are numerous in the mountains, for, in contrast to the devastation in the lowlands, there has been much development in highland areas.'[14]

The quest for land and the resettlement was generally orderly. Villeins from the principalities would follow a leader, still known as a 'voivode' or cnez, who contacted the owner of their chosen place of settlement. Since landowners were delighted to find new workers, there was normally little difficulty in reaching an agreement. When a new village was founded, both landowners and state tried to ease the villeins' burden by tax concessions and the provisional suspension of feudal services."










Wrong! Yet another misinformation, serfdom was abolished on August 5, 1746 in Wallachia(second only to England and Wales) and August 6, 1749 in Moldavia meanwhile the Austrian Empire abolished serfdom in a first step in 1781 but continued to exist until 1848.





Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
Wrong!Churches were commisioned for by boyars or the voievode and built with foreign masons.

I was not wrong, I know that Romanians had to hire foreign masons to build stone churches instead of their traditional wooden churches, because the lack of masons in medieval Romanian society.





Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
Wrong!The link its about the 1848 massacres, it written in the text...
Do you deny the massacres of your hero Horea and Closka? It was driven by Orthodox hatred towards Western Culture and Western Christianity.

Title The European Nobility in the Eighteenth Century
European Culture and Society Series
Author Jerzy Lukowski
Publisher Macmillan International Higher Education, 2003
ISBN 1403937737, 9781403937735
https://books.google.com/books?id=e1...=horea&f=false

During their massacre, Horea and Closka killed 300 Hungarian nobles and their serfs.The peasants began to sack the houses of the Hungarian landed nobility, killing them, or forcing them to convert to Orthodoxy.

Title Balkan Inferno: Betrayal, War and Intervention, 1990-2005
Author Wes Johnson
Edition illustrated, annotated
Publisher Enigma Books, 2007
Original from Indiana University
Digitized 13 Dec 2010
ISBN 1929631634, 9781929631636

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ub...3_AlMQ6AEIKDAA





Quote:
Originally Posted by decebalus View Post
The rest of your text is also aberrations combined with hungarian propaganda and lies but its late here and I am really tired of fact checking all this nonsense.

You forget to mention that Hungarians created and invented the first law of
religious freedom in Europe.

Early laws and legal guarantees for religious freedom.

(you can search the citations in the wiki page)

Principality of Transylvania
In 1558, the Transylvanian Diet's Edict of Torda declared free practice of both Catholicism and Lutheranism. Calvinism, however, was prohibited. Calvinism was included among the accepted religions in 1564. Ten years after the first law, in 1568, the same Diet, under the chairmanship of King of Hungary, and Prince of Transylvania John Sigismund Zápolya (John II.),[29] following the teaching of Ferenc Dávid,[30] the founder of the Unitarian Church of Transylvania,[31] extended the freedom to all religions, declaring that "It is not allowed to anybody to intimidate anybody with captivity or expelling for his religion". However, it was more than a religious tolerance; it declared the equality of the religions, prohibiting all kinds of acts from authorities or from simple people, which could harm other groups or people because of their religious beliefs. The emergence in social hierarchy wasn't dependent on the religion of the person thus Transylvania had also Catholic and Protestant monarchs, who all respected the Edict of Torda. The lack of state religion was unique for centuries in Europe. Therefore, the Edict of Torda is considered as the first legal guarantee of religious freedom in Christian Europe.[32]


Declaration, by Ferenc Dávid of Religious and Conscience Freedom in the Diet of Torda in 1568, painting by Aladár Körösfői-Kriesch
Act of Religious Tolerance and Freedom of Conscience: His majesty, our Lord, in what manner he – together with his realm – legislated in the matter of religion at the previous Diets, in the same matter now, in this Diet, reaffirms that in every place the preachers shall preach and explain the Gospel each according to his understanding of it, and if the congregation like it, well. If not, no one shall compel them for their souls would not be satisfied, but they shall be permitted to keep a preacher whose teaching they approve. Therefore none of the superintendents or others shall abuse the preachers, no one shall be reviled for his religion by anyone, according to the previous statutes, and it is not permitted that anyone should threaten anyone else by imprisonment or by removal from his post for his teaching. For faith is the gift of God and this comes from hearing, which hearings is by the word of God.

— Diet at Torda, 1568 : King John Sigismund[33]
Four religions (Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism, Unitarianism) were named as accepted religions (religo recepta), having their representatives in the Transylvanian Diet, while the other religions, like the Orthodoxs, Sabbatarians and Anabaptists were tolerated churches (religio tolerata), which meant that they had no power in the law making and no veto rights in the Diet, but they were not persecuted in any way. Thanks to the Edict of Torda, from the last decades of the 16th Century Transylvania was the only place in Europe, where so many religions could live together in harmony and without persecution.[34]



It seems, that you tried to interpret the history in anachronistic way to support modern-era nationalist/chauvinist theories. (You even tried to project back moder-type post-revolution era national feelings and national antagoinism into the medieval era.


The liberalism civil and political rights , minority rights were first declared and enacted in Hungary in the East-Central European region, many decades before they were enacted in Romania.

Last edited by janossyjanos; June 18th, 2018 at 10:47 AM.
janossyjanos is offline  
Old June 18th, 2018, 11:44 AM   #120

deaf tuner's Avatar
hier is da feestje !!!
 
Joined: Oct 2013
From: Europe
Posts: 11,847
Blog Entries: 27

Quote:
Originally Posted by janossyjanos View Post
…. The other cultural effect was the general rarity of stone/brick churches in (non-greek) Orthodox medieval countries...
How well You know Bulgaria, for example, janossy ur?

I might be wrong, but, Your phrase suggests that … not that well.

I propose You to take a bit of time in looking into the links from this page: Medieval Bulgarian Orthodox church buildings

I, know, it's only wiki, but it could be a good introduction. And really, there are very interesting things to learn.

Last edited by deaf tuner; June 18th, 2018 at 11:46 AM.
deaf tuner is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
fail, hungary, magyarize, nonhungarian, territories



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cut-off territories EmperorTigerstar European History 5 July 8th, 2015 10:41 AM
Lincoln and the Territories diddyriddick American History 12 February 5th, 2012 07:42 AM
Are these reservation territories? DeliciousTomatoesYay American History 3 September 23rd, 2011 05:54 PM
Expansion of slavery to the territories. Mike McClure American History 21 January 10th, 2011 07:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.