Stonehenge was built on solstice axis, dig confirms

[happyslug]

42. That is one of the reason you often have to read between the lines

One of my ancestors, left Austria, he had a ship to catch on a fast horse rather then stay around for the Shooting party everyone else had planned for him (Bribing the Guards help).

Another ancestor told the story that he was off the coast of Maryland and his ship sunk, and he and his brother in law were the only ones left for they had been sleeping. He and his brother inl aw then took a door off a hatch and used that to get to shore. There they were on the beach between Annapolis and Baltimore, so where did they go to report this story? Yes Hagerstown, 100 times further then either city and in the Mountains of Maryland.

Now, this same ancestor was NOT in the US at the time of the American Revolution but did win a land grant for showing up to defend Baltimore during the War of 1812. He was a captain of his Militia unit. That he was NOT in the US in 1775 but in the US in 1812, is the first indication of a problem with this story. While immigration to the US did not ever come to a complete stop, for all practical purposes it ended in 1774 when Britain passed its "Intolerable Acts" and forced America to war. The American Revolution (1775-1783) was followed by the Wars of the French Revolution (1789-1815), thus till the 1820s it was almost impossible to immigrant to the US (it took some time for immigration to re-start, through the Scots seems to be a constant source of Immigrants during the 1789-1812 period).

Thus you did have some Immigration, but it was rare compared to earlier and later time periods. Most Germans before 1774 immigrated from north west Germany, it is only after 1848 do you get substantial numbers of Germans from elsewhere in Germany (thus these older Germans are overwhelmingly Lutheran). My family, at that time, is believed to have been Catholic (we have gone in and out of the Catholic Church ever since).

Now, I have discussed the above with family members. My family's name is from the Alsace province of France, then and now a German speaking part of France. My Ancestor "Brother in law" was French. I found out one of the FRENCH ARMY units at Yorktown was a German Speaking unit out of Alsace. It members were suppose to be all Catholics. I hate to say this, and this is all speculation, is that I suspect my ancestor fought at Yorktown, talked to the Germans (who made up the majority of Washington's Army) and decided it was a good place to desert to. Now, desertion was NOT liked by the French, and Washington wanted to do all he could to keep the French happy, thus any US group that picked up a French Deserter would quickly turn them over to the French.

Now, the above is the background. I suspect my ancestor determined the best place to desert was after they were on a ship. That French unit shipped out of Baltimore. He and his brother in law, then took a door off a hatch in the Ship, loaded up with their personal belongings and pushed it silently off the ship. Taking a boat would alert the crew that someone had deserted, taking a door off a hatch (and may be the room to store alcohol) would imply that someone wanted something in that Hatch. By the time the Ship crew and Officers of the Army unit realized what happened, my ancestor was long on his way to Hagerstown. He dare NOT go to Baltimore or Annapolis for in either place he would be arrested and turned over to the French. In Hagerstown, he could melt into an already existing German Population. BY the time of the War of 1812, he had more military training then anyone else, so he was elected the unit's Captain and won his land grant (No one asked about how he left the French Army in 1781 in 1812).

It is all speculation, but it fits the facts that I know. That my ancestor was left alone on a sinking ship was a good enough lie for people who did not want to find out that it was a lie (and was bad enough for people to know it was a lie and thus do NOT dig to deep).

This is the type of reading between the lines one needs to understand history. I often give the example of interbreeding between Native Americans and Whites. Such interbreeding is report if the couple lived in a Native American Village, for such reports were wanted by the people back in the Colonial Capital on who to contact in that village. On the other hand, if a Native American entered white Society he was ignored UNLESS there was some reason to mention him or her.

We have to remember, in most society the number of females out number males by rarely by more then 1%. In Colonial America that could be as high as 10%. Given women were in short supply, they had the option of picking a mate wealthier then their family (and apparently did), thus what about the poor white males?

On the other hand, even in Colonial Times, one of the characteristics of Native American Tribe was that women survive disease more then males, thus their were known to have more women then men.

Now, in all reports white men living in white Society never married Native American Women, but then we have all types of reports of Half breeds living among whites (and reports of criminals with the description "Half Breed" as if that was descriptive). We have reports of old Native Americans living with White Families, much like an aged Grandfather would (but no one acknowledge him as an ancestor).

The answer? There was interbreeding, many a Native America Women left her tribe and married into a white male who wanted to stay in white society. If one of their children turned criminal we get a report of some "Half Breed" criminal for that was the best way to describe the criminal, and everyone knew people who were "half breed" to know what that description meant. Thus no reports of any half breeds in white Society UNLESS they did something criminal (and would describe the almost just stating a fact about a leader among the Native Americans who was white or half white).

As to the older Native Americans, it was someone's grandfather (or grandmother) and no one was going to ask anybody about.

Now, we do have reports of mixing of the "Races" before the Bacon's rebellion of 1670s. This included not only whites with Native Americans, but African Americans with whites. In fact one author points out that the concept of a "White Race" came out of the Bacon's Rebellion. You do NOT see the term prior to that Rebellion, but afterward you see it over and over again. In that rebellion, Whites and Blacks joined together to protest their treatment by the Colonial Government of Virginia. Some Native America joined in with them (Through the thrust was a demand for lands reserved to the Native Americans, but by 1676 the leadership of the Native Americans of that tribe had so interbreed with the white leadership of Virginia they were almost the same people).

Anyway, the Native Americans leadership was able to keep their lower class members loyal by emphasis that they were not white (even as most of the Native American Leadership of that Tribe had white blood in them by then). This weakened the rebellion and gave an edge to the Colonial Government. Jamestown was burned down, but the rebellion was suppressed. The Colonial Government then seems to have adopted a policy of pushing racism to divide the poor whites from the African American Slave Population AND from the Native American population, thus preventing whites and blacks from joining together against the 1% of Colonial Virginia:


http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/21/the-invention-of-the-white-race/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Invention-White-Race-Volume/dp/1844677699


Back to "Mixing of the Races"

We know the people on the Frontier interacted with Native Americas. They often wore the same type of clothing (Hunting Shirts and leggings), they planted the same crop (Corn, beans and Pumpkins) and were treated the same by people on the Coast (George Washington called the people on the Frontier "White Indians" for example). These were the poor, moved to the Frontier for the land was free. When the land became "White" by some treaty, these frontiersmen found themselves on somebodies else's property and either had to pay for it or leave (Virginia in the 1700s had adopted a rule that the real owner of the property had to pay for any "improvements" which meant mostly how much land was cleared, but Washington's agents in Western Pennsylvania were known NOT to accept such "Improvements" as "Improvements" and also demanded top dollar for the property (This treatment by George Washington was a contributory reason for the amount of opposition to the Federal Government during the Whiskey Rebellion).

Now, after the war of 1812, the population difference between Whites and Native Americans had become so huge that you stop seeing "Half Breeds" and those people who had native American blood in them did they best to cover it up. I had a ancestor who married a Native American but decided it was better to live among his people in the Mountains of Maryland then where he had meet her (in Ohio). The reason was simple, among his relatives they had to accept her for she was his wife, among strangers he had no similar ability to "force" them to accept her (prior to Social Security, your old age safety net was your younger relatives, thus older people did not offend their children to much by their choice of spouse, for often that is the woman who will take care of them in their old age).

When you read about the Boars of South African (The Decedents of the Dutch who settled in South Africa), it is believed about 5% of their ancestors were Black South Africans. This shows up every so often when a black child is born to an Afrikaner family. The same with whites in the US, I suspect 5-10 % of white Gene pool of families who have been here since 1800 is Native American Genes. Hard to trace today, for most of their ancestors made an effort to hide it (And do not go by US Census records, Thomas Jefferson's African American slave that many claim to be his "wife", the evidence is not conclusive thus my hedging, when she became free report herself as "White" on US Census reports).

I bring up records for the US Census reports are a good place to look, but remember the people filling them out knew no one will double check them so if they had a good reason to lie (and cover up Native American or African America Ancestry was a good reason at that time), they would lie. I have checked the Census reports of my Grandfather and in three Census he reports three different counties and states he was born in. I do not trust ANY of these census reports.

The same Grandfather was reported to have changed the dates of Birth of relatives in the family bible, the only report of their births. The reason for the change was to make them eligible for Social Security, born to early you were not entitled to Social Security, remember the first Social Security Check was issued in 1938, 65 years before was 1873, thus if born before 1873 you were NOT entitled to Social Security, but if born after that date AND paid into it, you were. Most states did not keep birth records dates in the 1870s so Social Security would accept entries in Family Bibles as valid. Just a comment to remember when reading records, if people had a good reason to lie, they would, but of they had no reason to lie, the records can generally be trusted.

Just a comment, you often have to read between the lines, not only what people did report and why and also what they did NOT report and why. To many people take what is written as valid, without taking the time to understand WHY it was Written. Why something was written can say more then what was actually written and you have to remember that about records from the past.